Oral Answers to Questions

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Children Bill

Martin Caton: What representations he has received from the Children's Commissioner for Wales on the Children Bill.

Don Touhig: I recently met the Children's Commissioner for Wales to discuss his work and the impact on that work of the Children Bill. I have also met the all-party group on children in Wales. The Bill will provide the basis for further strengthening of local services for children and young people in Wales, giving them the start in life they so richly deserve.

Martin Caton: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but is it not the case that the Welsh commissioner, his opposite numbers in Scotland and Northern Ireland and voluntary organisations working with children in Wales all say that the proposal in the Bill to create an English commissioner with responsibility for non-devolved matters over other parts of the UK is mistaken? Surely, the best way forward for all children in the UK is certainly to have an English commissioner, with responsibility for all children and all policy aspects in England, but to extend the remit of the other commissioners in the UK to cover non-devolved matters.

Don Touhig: The post of Welsh commissioner was set up by the National Assembly in response to the Waterhouse report and to support the Assembly's rights-based strategy for children. The Government's new agenda for children is focused on our key outcome—improving children's lives. The role of the children's commissioner in England was designed with a different agenda in mind, and a key role for the commissioner will be to monitor progress on our priority outcomes for children. As responsibility for non-devolved matters lies at Westminster, it is appropriate that they come under the responsibility of a commissioner who reports to Ministers who answer to this House, so I do not agree with the last part of his question.

Hywel Williams: Following the extraordinary performance by the Minister for Children yesterday, the question for the hon. Gentleman and for the Secretary of State is clear: do they stand with the Children's Commissioner for Wales, with MPs and AMs from all parties, with non-governmental organisations in Wales and, most important, with children in Wales, or do they back the Minister for Children in her extraordinary attack on the Welsh children's commissioner? The commissioner or the Minister, which is it to be?

Don Touhig: I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Minister was trying to emphasise the difference in approach to the work of the Children's Commissioner for Wales and the work proposed for the children's commissioner for England. As I said in my previous answer, the commissioner in Wales deals with individual cases on a day-to-day basis. I have met him and I know the value of the work that he is doing. In England, the role of the commissioner was designed with a different agenda in mind: to focus on the Government's strategic aims and to monitor progress. We should understand that important difference before we get any deeper into the argument.

Alan Howarth: Has the Children's Commissioner for Wales, following his important previous report, offered my hon. Friend any further advice, in the context of the Children Bill, on the practicalities of achieving improved multi-agency co-ordination of early and expert care for young people with emotional and behavioural difficulties, to ensure that mental health problems in childhood and adolescence are not carried forward into adult life?

Don Touhig: The Bill will enable my colleagues in the Assembly to put the children and young people framework partnership in Wales on a statutory footing with all 22 local authority areas. I know that the matter to which my right hon. Friend refers exercised the Children's Commissioner for Wales a little while ago. I have very useful discussions with the commissioner and have no doubt that as the Bill progresses there will be discussions about a memorandum of understanding between the commissioner in England, the commissioner in Wales and the other devolved Administrations. I hope and expect that the points raised by my right hon. Friend will come out in those discussions.
	The Secretary of State and I have made it clear to the Children's Commissioner for Wales that our door is always open if he wishes to raise matters with us. We think that the Bill offers a good deal for Wales, because a third of it is Wales-only; it takes forward the devolution agenda sensibly and progressively and we want to ensure that it works well for Wales. We shall work closely with the Children's Commissioner for Wales to deliver the best for the children of Wales.

Industry/University Links

Ian Lucas: What discussions he has had with the Minister for Economic Development and Transport of the National Assembly for Wales on encouraging closer working between manufacturing industry and universities in Wales.

Peter Hain: We have held regular discussions. Strengthening collaborative links between industry, academia and our science base is vital if Wales is to continue to attract and develop high-tech investment and to compete in global markets.

Ian Lucas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that creating a research infrastructure in an important manufacturing area such as north-east Wales is essential to the continued success of manufacturing in the region? Will he ask the Minister responsible for such matters in the National Assembly for Wales to make an assessment of how much current research for manufacturing companies in north-east Wales is carried out in Wales?

Peter Hain: I will happily speak to the Minister for Economic Development and Transport to find out whether it is possible to discover the answer to my hon. Friend's question. He will know that a £150 million technium project is being rolled out the length and breadth of Wales, including two research and development facilities for laser technology—at St. Asaph in north Wales and, of course, at the centre for advanced software technology at Bangor. That marriage of industry, science, innovation and academia is the key to Wales's drive to improve our technological base, our economy and our valued-added ability to win in global markets.

Bill Wiggin: How many jobs are there in the chemicals sectors in Wales, and how dependent are those jobs on the chemistry taught in Swansea? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the closure of the chemistry department at Swansea university will have a negative impact on the future of that sector in Wales?

Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the manufacturing sector in Wales, including the chemistry industry, is in good shape. Indeed, the CBI director said that the news for manufacturing is better than it has been for a very long time in Wales. However, in respect of the university of Swansea, I understand that the intention is to close the undergraduate courses over a period of years, while protecting existing students' rights and maintaining postgraduate studies, research and related academic areas.

Bill Wiggin: The reason cited for the closure of that department is that courses in other subjects can be run for less money. When asking industry to support universities, how does the right hon. Gentleman respond to the accusation that the Government's targets are forcing universities to offer more and cheaper courses, rather than traditional, scientific research subjects, such as chemistry?

Peter Hain: I respond to that accusation by saying that it is clearly nonsense. In fact, we are now seeing more and more collaboration between industry and universities in Wales, including Swansea and Cardiff, which is doing especially well. That is driving forward the Welsh economy's ability to compete. I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman raises this issue given that the Conservative party intends, if it wins the next general election, to institute cuts in the first two years of its period in office, thus reducing education funding in universities and cutting the ability of Wales to prosper. It is no surprise therefore that he did not even know when his manifesto launch for the local election was to take place. He seems to have lost the draft manifesto. Perhaps he can tell us when he will deal with that.

Mark Tami: The Secretary of State will be aware of the recent announcement of the proposed closure of RAF Sealand and the subsequent possible job losses there. Will he join me in working with the Welsh Development Agency, Flintshire county council and the Assembly to generate new employment? In particular, he has mentioned techniums, so will he encourage the development of techniums in north Wales, especially in areas where we are very successful, such as the aerospace industry?

Peter Hain: I will happily do that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on the jewel in the crown of the north-east Wales economy—its Airbus operations and the related support mechanisms. If the Assembly is able to encourage research and development in the technium concept there, it will be a very good thing indeed. In respect of Sealand, yes, I will happily work with him on that because alternative opportunities are available for the workers who have lost their jobs. We are seeing a process of rapid change in industry and throughout the Welsh economy, in which nevertheless more and more jobs are being created all the time, with employment up by 120,000 since the general election in 1997.

Lembit �pik: The Secretary of State will be aware that the university of Wales clearly plays an important role in providing a skills base for manufacturing in Wales. Is he aware of the problems presently facing the university of Wales and the fact that a cross-party group of MPs and other individuals are seeking solutions to those difficulties? Will he share his views on what we should be doing, what he has done and how he feels about the confederation proposals in respect of the universities in Wales? Finally, would he be willing to listen to some specific proposals, when they have been formulated by the interested parties, to resolve the issues facing the university of Wales?

Peter Hain: Of course, I will be happy to listen to specific proposals from the hon. Gentleman or others, but it is important that universities such as Cardiff and others, are able to market themselves very effectively, as he will agree, in an intensely competitive global higher education market. In particular, Cardiff has done extraordinarily well in the past few years, and other universities in Wales are in a similar position. We want them all to develop in their own ways, rather than having an over-arching bureaucracy that holds them back. Nevertheless, we should consider the different models that exist.

Donald Anderson: Undergraduate teaching in chemistry will be ended in Swansea, while the university is expanding the teaching of softer, more popular subjects, such as media studies. Surely if the Government are serious about encouraging a science base, as we said in the Budget, we should look again at what Swansea university is suggesting, particularly because the experts say that research needs an undergraduate base. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we wish to thrive as a nation, we cannot go around simply writing media essays to one another?

Peter Hain: I could not agree more. The problem with Swansea, as my right hon. Friend will know as a local Member of Parliament, is that both the university senate and council voted overwhelmingly in support of the proposals. I myself am disappointed, not least because I have a company in my constituency that was spun out of Swansea university's chemistry department 10 to 20 years ago. Excellence should be maintained, and the university says that that will indeed be the case at postgraduate levelthe very level which feeds into innovation and technological development.

Economic Inactivity

Hywel Francis: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales on measures to reduce the levels of economic inactivity in Wales.

Peter Hain: We hold regular discussions. Recent increases in employment and economic activity rates throughout Wales indicate that real progress is being made, but more needs to be done to reduce levels of economic inactivity.

Hywel Francis: One of the Government's great successes is the way in which it has tackled economic inactivity among young people. An excellent project in my constituency, Unit 19 Training, links Sandfields comprehensive school to the world of work through accredited skills training provided by the Workers Educational Association. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the project on winning a major national award as part of adult learners week later this month, and would he consider visiting my constituency to see the project in action? Could it be developed with funding such as that provided by the new deal and perhaps replicated in other parts of Wales?

Peter Hain: I am aware of the excellent work done by Unit 19, and visited Sandfields in my hon. Friend's constituency only a few months ago to look at that work, which is based around the school and undertaken in co-operation with local industry to make sure that disaffected youngsters are brought back into the labour market and given opportunity and hope for the future. Such programmes would be endangered if the Tory party came to power and introduced plans to axe the new deal. The Labour Government, however, are very proud of the success of such programmes.

Bill Wiggin: I wish that the Secretary of State was right, because the International Labour Organisation says that youth unemployment in Wales is 13.2 per cent, while the UK average is 12.4 per cent.; employment in Wales is 72.1 per cent. compared with the UK average of 74.8 per cent.; and economic activity in Wales, at 75.9 per cent., lags behind the UK average of 78.7 per cent. Will he tighten his grip on the First Minister or take whatever steps he can, as things are clearly in need of a great deal of improvement?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman calls for improvement, but his party has a record in Wales of mass unemploymentup to 160,000. When we came to power, large parts of Wales had high levels of youth unemployment. It is our new deal programme, other programmes of active economic intervention and our successful running of the economy that have put the Welsh economy, as the director of CBI Wales said only a few days ago, in its best position for decades. We are proud of that record, on which we will fight the June elections and the next general election, when we expect to hammer the Conservatives, given their dreadful record in Wales.

S4C

Simon Thomas: What discussions he has held with (a) S4C and (b) the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the current review of S4C.

Don Touhig: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular meetings with ministerial colleagues to discuss a range of issues. We met the chief executive of S4C to discuss the current review on 20 April.

Simon Thomas: I thank the Minister for his reply, but does he agree that it is vital that S4C and other broadcasters in Wales maintain access to sufficient funding for the digital future that is coming to broadcasting? Will he put the Wales Office, with the support of my hon. Friends, other hon. Members and myself, at the head of a campaign to ensure that Wales is one of the first areas in the United Kingdom to receive digital terrestrial broadcasting and does not lag behind, as has often happened in the past? If he takes that lead, we can have an all-digital future for Wales, which is the best solution for Wales and everyone living there.

Don Touhig: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has discussed that issue with broadcasters in Wales. We think that it is important. The agenda and the range of subjects that we covered at our meetings, particularly with S4C, covered that, as well as the current review, viewing figures, analogue switch-off and so on. We are determined to make sure that, in terms of broadcasting, Wales has a very good deal. My right hon. Friend in particular has worked hard at that, and he and I are happy to share with the hon. Gentleman and with other right hon. and hon. Members the work that we are doing, so that we push forward with a collective agenda to get the best that we can for broadcasting in Wales.

Chris Bryant: But will my hon. Friend point out to S4C when next he meets its representatives, and to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, that people in the valleys are sick and tired of having to choose between S4C and Channel 4? They do not want S4C or Channel 4, they want S4C and Channel 4, and the only way that that will happen is if the digital freeview service is rolled out across the valleys as soon as possible.

Don Touhig: We are on common ground in that regard. Of course people want Channel 4 and S4C. We are working to try to ensure that that happens. Our discussions have been fruitful, and the review, so far as S4C is concerned, will have an impact on that. We all share a common goal. How we ultimately get there will be important. I have no doubt that it is the view right across the House that we must deliver on this, and we will work hard to do so. As I said in response to an earlier question, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gives it high priority.

Post Office

Ann Clwyd: What discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly about proposed Post Office branch closures in Wales.

Don Touhig: My right hon. Friend and I hold regular bilateral meetings with the First Minister and other Assembly Ministers to discuss a range of issues, including the impact of the post office network reinvention programme in Wales.

Ann Clwyd: The post office at Abernant in my constituency is the only shop in the village, the only community centre and the only bank, and 70 per cent. of the people in the Cynon valley claim their benefits through post offices, so it is a retrograde step on the part of the Post Office to shut such a facility in an impoverished area. I hope my hon. Friend will join me in opposing that closure.

Don Touhig: I have taken a close interest in the network reinvention programme, as we all have because it has affected our constituencies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met and has also written to the Post Office management underlining the important social role of post offices and the need for proper local consultation, particularly in the case of communities such as the one my hon. Friend represents, where any closure may impact on elderly, disabled and disadvantaged people. We will continue with those discussions. I know that the closure in Abernant is opposed by Postwatch. I hope that the campaign in which my hon. Friend is involved is successful, and that she succeeds in keeping the post office open for her constituents.

Roger Williams: The Minister will be aware that three post offices in my constituency were under threatPenrhos, Glanrhyd and Cwmphil road. The Post Office has now decided to keep Glanrhyd open and to close Penrhos, which was the one that served the most deprived community, but it has given us no reasons for its decision. Will the Minister help us find out what reasons lie behind the Post Office's decisions in these matters?

Don Touhig: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am ever the diplomat in these matters, but the discussions that I have had with the Post Office on closures have not always been entirely fruitful, and in face-to-face discussions with Post Office representatives I have left them in no doubt what I think of their consultation. A number of colleagues in the House have had face-to-face meetings with Post Office representatives and, as a result, they have extended the consultation period and ensured that Members of Parliament and Assembly Members are given advance notice, but in the interests of our constituents we should not let up in our efforts to ensure that there is proper and adequate consultation, that everyone's views are taken into account and that we have the best possible post office network. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a great deal of money has been put into the network reinvention programmeabout 16 million in Waleswhich will benefit the overall network at the end of the day.

Antisocial Behaviour (Monmouthshire)

Huw Edwards: If he will meet the First Minister to discuss strategies to combat antisocial behaviour in Monmouthshire.

Peter Hain: I will certainly do so when I next meet the First Minister.The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 provides a wide range of tools to tackle antisocial behaviour and the Government are determined that people should be able to live their lives free from intimidation and harassment.

Huw Edwards: Despite the fall in crime overall, antisocial behaviour and vandalism remain a scourge in many Welsh communities, most recently in Llanelly hill and Clydach in my constituencymatters that I raised with the new chief constable of Gwent when I met him on Friday. Given the additional measures that the Government have introduced, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that if communities report all incidents of vandalism, the police will investigate them and the perpetrators will be brought to justice?

Peter Hain: I certainly want to see that happen, and I am pleased that the new chief constable of Gwent joined my hon. Friend in examining the problem in his constituency. Antisocial behaviour still plagues too many of our communities across both Wales and England, which is why the recruitment of 120 new community support officers and 760 new police officers is so important. The signing of 77 antisocial behaviour orders in Wales is also encouraging, but I want more ASBOs to be implemented. Police forces and local authorities are not doing enough to stamp the problem outthe powers are there; they must be used.

Health Service Funding

James Gray: What recent discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales Government on the funding of the NHS in Wales.

Don Touhig: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular meetings with the First Minister and the Minister for Health and Social Services in the Assembly to discuss Government funding and the NHS in Wales.

James Gray: I am glad to hear that. Why has the number of people on waiting lists in Wales increased from 168,000 at devolution in 1999 tothese are the latest figures294,000 in March 2004, which is a 75 per cent. increase? Why is spending per head on the national health service in Wales less than that anywhere else in the United Kingdom?

Don Touhig: Let us start with 18 years of under-investment by the Tory party. Since the Government came to power, we have spent 4.3 billion on health in Wales, which is a 96 per cent. increase. As for waiting lists, the figures for the last quarter show considerable decreases of more than 70 per cent. for in-patient treatments, and 36 per cent. for out-patient appointments. We are taking steps to improve the health service in Wales, but the Conservative party opposes our investment. We will take that message to the electors, which is why they will vote Labour on 10 June.

Kevin Brennan: We should always strive to reform and improve public services, but it is not possible without increased investment. Investment in the NHS in Wales has reached record levels during the past few years, but it would be cut under the Opposition's plans.

Don Touhig: My hon. Friend is right. We all know the great patient passport plan advocated by the Conservative party. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) told the Conservative Medical Society:
	We've got a problem where the NHS and health care has been synonymous. We're here to break that.
	That is the Conservative party's policy. Under patient passports, people in Wales would pay 1,900 for a cataract removal, 5,700 for a knee replacement and 8,500 for a heart bypass. That is why they will vote Labour on 10 June.

Adam Price: During the past five years, England has seen the biggest hospital-building programme in its history, and the Scottish Executive makes a similar claim for Scotland. Will the Minister take this opportunity to make the same claim for Wales?

Don Touhig: The hon. Gentleman should congratulate the Government on their effort on the health service in Wales. Ten new hospitals are planned or have been started, and our investment is improving the health service in Wales. Where would we be if his party were in power? Wales would be cut off from the rest of the United Kingdom. Again, we will get that message across to the people of Wales on 10 June.

Employment

John Smith: If he will make a statement about employment levels in (a) the Vale of Glamorgan and (b) Wales.

Peter Hain: The labour market in Wales continues to perform well, and better than the average for the UK economic regions. There are now more people in work than ever before, and the employment rate in the Vale of Glamorgan remains above that of Wales as a whole.

John Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which confirms that unemployment in my constituency is now at a 30-year low. However, he will know that the Red Dragon project is important for future employment prospects in the Vale of Glamorgan. Will he undertake to do all that he can to convince the Ministry of Defence to roll back the Tornado GR4 platform to the Defence Aviation Repair Agency works at RAF St. Athan, which will provide value for money for taxpayers, enhance our military capability and guarantee the Red Dragon project for 20 years?

Peter Hain: I will certainly do all that I can to achieve that objective. Indeed, I have already spoken to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence about it. I was very pleased that the Secretary of State for Defence recently said that we remain absolutely committed to the Red Dragon project.
	My hon. Friend is right, too, about the health of his local labour market. Under Labour, there are more jobs and a stronger economy in the Vale of Glamorgan and throughout Wales. That is why the people of Wales will back Labour on 10 June and in a general election when it comes.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Gordon Marsden: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 5 May.

Tony Blair: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Gordon Marsden: Does the Prime Minister welcome the initiative on launching countrywide education maintenance allowances, which will give 16 to 19-year-olds from limited-income families up to 30 a week to stay on and get qualifications? Will he celebrate that radical initiative, which will benefit up to 1,000 families in Blackpool, and the historic achievements of this Government in contrast with the Conservatives, who would shut down life chances, trapped as they are in their Thatcherite past?

Tony Blair: I am delighted to say that the education maintenance allowance will benefit more than 350,000 young people in the next financial year. However, that is not all. In addition, 250,000 people are now on modern apprenticeships and the new deal for the unemployed has helped 1 million people into jobs. That is why it is important that we continue with those policies, not scrap them as the Conservatives would.

Michael Howard: British servicemen and women have made, and are making, enormous sacrifices in Iraq on our behalf and on behalf of the Iraqi people. Does the Prime Minister agree that the allegations published in the Daily Mirror have done enormous damage to the reputation of our forces? If they turn out to be true, does he agree that the severest action should be taken against those involved? If they turn out to be false, does he further agree that that is a matter of the utmost seriousness for which the editor of the Daily Mirror will have to take full responsibility?

Tony Blair: Of course allegations of this nature are extremely serious. If they are true, that is completely unacceptable: everybody, whether or not they have supported the action in Iraq, would say that. On the other hand, if they are not true, that is also extremely serious. They are being investigated by the Royal Military Police, who should be allowed to carry out their investigationsI have every confidence that they will do so properly and truthfullyand we can then debate the findings.

Michael Howard: Turning to the handover of sovereignty on 30 June, will the Prime Minister now answer the questions that I put to him last week and the week before? Who do the Government think should be responsible after 30 June for security issues, the deployment of troops and the custody of detainees? Can the Prime Minister now tell us whether it is likely that more British troops will be sent to Iraq?

Tony Blair: On the first point, after 30 June, there will be a complete handover of sovereignty to the new Iraqi Governmentthey will have complete and full sovereignty. However, as people in Iraq recognise, they will have to maintain coalition troops there to help with security and order. At the present time, we are sitting down and working out what are the right arrangements to ensure that we have not only the maintenance of the coalition troops that is necessary to provide security in order to allow the political process to work, but the right degree of co-operation between the new Iraqi Government and those coalition forces. Obviously, that will have to take into account the need to maintain order and the need to have firm lines of commandparticularly for British and coalition troops, who need to know where they stand on these issues, but also to ensure the full involvement of the new Iraqi Government. That is the best that I can say at the present time while those discussions are continuing.
	In respect of any additional troops who may be required, we are in discussion with our coalition partners and with the Americans about the possibility of providing more troops for different parts of the country. Those discussions are not yet concluded. As I said in the House previously, we will keep the matter under constant reviewit is important to do that.
	I want to point out that, although the allegations against British troops are extremely serious, and I have already said that they should be fully investigated, I hope that they do not detract from the work that is being done by thousands of British troops, who risk their lives in Iraq to make the country better. They serve this country well and work to the enormous benefit of the majority of Iraqi people. When I spoke to some of the Ministers from Iraq last week, they wished me to pass on to everyone their support for the work of British troops in places such as Basra to help the Iraqi people.

Michael Howard: Of course, I entirely agree with the Prime Minister's last comments and I understand what he said about the position after the handover. Indeed, he has helpfully set out some of the criteria that should be in place when those decisions are made. However, he has not told us what the British Government believe should happen. Does he not owe the House an account of the Government's view of those critical issues? Given that we are less than two months away from the handover, does he agree with the White House spokesman who said last week that what is envisaged after 30 June is the transfer of full sovereignty but only limited authority?

Tony Blair: No. I have not read those specific comments but I saw those of Secretary of State Colin Powell. I believe that they say the same as I said a moment ago: of course, full sovereignty will be transferred to the Iraqi Government but the practical necessity for coalition troops to remain means that there must be a proper authority under which they operate. That will be negotiated with the Iraqis. There is no point in my trying to go into the details now, while it is being discussed. The main thing is to ensure a proper system of co-operation that both abides entirely by the principle that the Iraqis are in full, sovereign control of Iraq after 30 June and makes sure that British, American and other coalition troops have proper chains of command. Frankly, it is better for me not to speculate about that at this point but to leave it to the people on the ground to work out the best arrangement.

Lindsay Hoyle: Is my right hon. Friend aware of post office closures throughout Lancashire? The problem is that people are being bribed to close them through the enhancements that Royal Mail offers; there is no business case for the closures. The only losers are the public who use the post offices. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to ensure that Members of Parliament, local authorities and everybody can see the business case and open the books rather than accepting the post office closures that are taking place?

Tony Blair: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concern. As he knows, we made it clear that the Post Office had to have the commercial freedom to operate in the way in which it believes appropriate. On the other hand, it will have heard my hon. Friend's comments and we believe that it is important that proper consultation takes place.

Charles Kennedy: In view of the worrying bomb attacks in Athens today, does the Prime Minister believe that there is any need for the Government to review their intended security measures to safeguard the interests of the British team at the summer Olympics?

Tony Blair: Like every other Government, we remain in constant contact and dialogue with the Greek Government. Our current view is that the games should go ahead as planned. Of course, we keep those matters under review, but the right hon. Gentleman should not take that as an indication that our view is about to change. We are in constant dialogue but we have every faith in the way in which the Greek authorities are handling matters.

Charles Kennedy: On another sporting topic of this week, what is the Prime Minister's personal opinion about whether the English cricket team should undertake its tour of Zimbabwe? Personally, I am against it; is he against it?

Tony Blair: The position is exactly as I set it out when I was last asked that question. However, there is a difference between stating my personal view, which I previously outlined at the Dispatch Box[Hon. Members: What is it?] As I said then, we would prefer the team not to go, but there is a difference between expressing a personal view and ordering the team not to go, which I think would step over the proper line. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will meet the England and Wales Cricket Board tomorrow. However, many people believein my opinion, rightlythat the problem resides with the International Cricket Council.

Stephen McCabe: Yesterday saw the launch of Labour's local government campaign and, I understand, a few clumsy events in Birmingham as well. It was also a significant political anniversary. If the Prime Minister could spare the country any of the mistakes of the '80s and '90s, what would they be?

Tony Blair: Most people would remember mass unemployment going over 3 million. They would particularly remember unemployment rising by more than 1 million when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was Employment Secretary. Contrast that with 2 million extra jobs in the British economy since this Government came to power.

Michael Howard: When the Minister of State, Department for Transport, with characteristic candour, said that he wanted to tax people out of their cars, was he speaking for the Government?

Tony Blair: We are not taxing people out of their cars. What we are doing is making a huge investment in public transport, in roads as well as rail, and that is important for the future of the country. What is more, it is only as a result of that additional investment that we are able to see the improvements that there are.

Michael Howard: The Prime Minister should have paid a bit more attention to what the Transport Minister said. He went on to say:
	I don't think fuel is particularly expensive in Britain,
	and that some people think that
	it's cheaper than it should be.
	Does the Prime Minister think that it is cheaper than it should be?

Tony Blair: We have set the fuel duties; they are set in the Budget. Actually, it is true that motoring costs have fallen, not risen, in the past few years. But the point is that we are making our commitment to transport clear by putting a substantial extra investment year on year into our transport system. As a result of the policies outlined by the shadow Chancellor, however, it is the Conservatives' proposal to cut in real terms the transport budget in this country[Interruption.] Oh yes it is. They are prepared to cut every single budget other than those for the national health service and schools, and even those are to be depleted by their patient and pupil passports. The fact is that we are putting the money in and the right hon. and learned Gentleman would take it out.

Michael Howard: I understand why the Prime Minister does not want to talk about what his Transport Minister said, and why he would prefer to talk about our plans, which he consistently misrepresents. He will not say whether he thinks petrol is cheaper than it should be, but the Chancellor obviously thinks that it is, because he is going to put petrol tax up again in September. Is that not just the latest example of Labour letting people down?

Tony Blair: We removed the fuel duty escalator. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that his proposals are not for a cut in every budget other than the NHS and schools, but the shadow Chancellor has said quite specifically that there would be no real-terms increases in any of those budgets. What that means[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would say to the Prime Minister that the policy of the Opposition is not really for the Prime Minister[Interruption.] Order. Let me chair the proceedings of the House of Commons. Perhaps a change in the way of addressing the Chamber would be helpful.

Tony Blair: You are absolutely right, Mr. Speaker, and I apologise. Let me tell the House which policies I will not pursue on behalf of the Government. I will continue to invest in additional numbers of police in this country. We will continue to invest in the new deal for the young people of this country. We will continue to increase local government spending in this country. We will continue to fund additional increases in pensions for pensioners in this country. What we will not do is reintroduce the poll tax, abolish the minimum wage, abolish the new deal and cut public spending. That is what we will do, that is what we won't do and that is why the British people will support us.

Frank Roy: I recently visited four schools in my constituency to discuss the need for a global campaign for education. At Our Lady's high school in Motherwell, I was presented with a petition, which said:
	We call upon the UK Government to increase support to poorer countries to ensure that every child has access to high quality basic education .
	What message does the Prime Minister have, not just for the signatories of that petition, but for the millions of people throughout the United Kingdom who agree with its sentiments?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend touches on a point of great concern to people in this country and worldwide: the need to increase the provision of education in the developing world. He will know that the first millennium development goal of the United Nations is to make sure that primary school education is available to all children in the developing world. The plain fact is that, although as a Government we have invested around 1 billion in education in the poorest countries in the world, there is still a great deal more to do. I hope that some of the conclusions of the Africa commission can help with this issue.

Andrew Robathan: As the Prime Minister makes more promises to the people of this country, does he recall the handwritten promise that he made to the people of Northern Ireland that said:
	Those who use or threaten violence to be excluded from the government of Northern Ireland?
	Now that he has accepted the first report of the Independent Monitoring Commission, which states clearly that Sinn Fein remains responsible for the ongoing terrorist violence in Northern Ireland, will he keep that promise from 1998?

Tony Blair: It is precisely because we kept that promise that Sinn Fein is not in government at present. Let me remind the House that we have suspended the government of Northern Ireland on that basis. What is important is to make sure that there can be no way that anyone comes back into government in Northern Ireland unless it is absolutely clear that violence and paramilitary activity have been given up for good.

Mark Todd: Does the Prime Minister agree that fighting crime is essentially a partnership between the public and police? Will he commend the South Derbyshire crime and disorder reduction partnership, whose record is among the best in the country? Will he pick out in particular the example of the event that I attended last week involving the introduction of a joiner to go around assisting elderly people with home security? Is there a case for making sure that the best practice of such partnerships is shared across the country?

Tony Blair: Let me congratulate those in my hon. Friend's constituency who have been engaged in this home security plan. It is an important example of good practice and we are trying to make sure that that is rolled out across the country. The Home Office is having meetings with practitioners from different parts of the country, to help not just with home security, particularly for the elderly, but to deal with antisocial behaviour. That is one major issue on which the community, if it comes together properly, can make a huge difference.

Laurence Robertson: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Minister for the Environment, who said that building on flood plains was inappropriate? If he does, can he explain the extraordinary report of his inspector Mary Travers on the Tewkesbury local plan? She actually proposed building on flood plain between the villages of Longford and Innsworth, building on green belt and building that would cause villages to coalesce. Will he investigate that report, call it in and explain it?

Tony Blair: I will certainly[Hon. Members: Full answer.] There is not much help in my notes anyway.
	I will certainly investigate the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised. Obviously, I cannot make any promises about calling in the report, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to consider. Since the hon. Gentleman raised the issue of housing, I will point out that today marks the fulfilment of restoring 1 million additional homes to decent housing under this Government's housing investment. I know that that is nothing to do with his point, but at least it is in my notes.

Michael Meacher: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that pacification by brute force, whether the mass killings at Falluja, the alleged use of torture, or the unilateral annexation by force of significant sections of the west bank, will only inflame resistance and not produce a just or lasting peace? Will he therefore loudly declare, on behalf of the international community, that there must be bilateral negotiations between the opposing sides, because only a political settlement by mutual consent, and not a militarily imposed settlement, will have any hope of proving long-lasting?

Tony Blair: We must distinguish clearly between two separate situations. In respect of Iraq, let me repeat again that, if there has been abuse of human rights, torture or degradation of prisoners, that is wholly unacceptable and it is what we went to Iraq to get rid of, not to perpetuate. However, I should point out every time I answer this question, because I think it only fair to British troops, that the vast bulk of British troops out there would also be horrified if any such incidents had taken place.
	Let me tell my right hon. Friend about just some of the things that British troops have been doing over the past few days. They have been providing new, safe drinking water for up to 100,000 people, installing electricity pylons, ensuring that they can run training courses for primary health care assistants and rebuilding the Basra sports station, as well as engaging in literally thousands of local infrastructure projects. When we investigate these allegations, it is important to take a balanced view.
	As for what is happening in Falluja, I am pleased to say that we are trying to bring in Iraqis to police the situation themselves. I think that that is sensible. I believe there is a possibilityI put it no higherthat we can calm the situation and get it under control. The more that we Iraqi-ise the security aspects, the better things will be.
	In respect of the middle east, I believe that everything should be part of a negotiated settlement between the two sides. I do not think that we should prejudge that negotiated settlement in any way. I think it right for us again to maintain balanceto condemn, of course, any illegal activity and reprisals, but at the same time to condemn the terrorists who also kill innocent people.

David Laws: Why does the Prime Minister think he is losing the trust of the British people?

Tony Blair: In the end, that is a judgment that the British people will make at the ballot box. In the end, what will count is whether we have delivered on the stable economy, the improved public services, the reduction in poverty and the reduction in crime that formed the basis on which we were elected. I believe that in respect of all those we have a very good story to tell.

Helen Jones: The new children's centre in my constituency caters for more than 900 children through a combination of nursery provision and a Sure Start programme. While that excellent initiative is tackling disadvantage at its roots, in some parts of my constituency, parents have no access to such good facilities. What plans has the Prime Minister to expand the network of children's centres so that children can be given the best possible start in life and parents can have access to good, affordable child care? Does he believe that that would be aided by the massive cut in the budget for the under-fives that the Conservatives would impose?

Tony Blair: The Sure Start programme now helps about 400,000 children living in disadvantaged areas. That is a huge step forward. I think that virtually everyone who speaks to people engaged in the programme sings its praises. In addition, we are setting up children's centres around the country, and I hope that that provision will reach parts of Warrington that Sure Start has not reached. There will also be a growth in real spending on child care of some 17 per cent. over the next few years. All the evidence suggests that investment in children's early years results in better schooling for them in later life and a more responsible attitude towards society as a whole.

Andrew Turner: I am sure that the House welcomes Sinn Fein's exclusion from government in Northern Ireland because of its breach of the Good Friday agreement. Can the Prime Minister explain why he has excluded the three peaceful political parties from government as well?

Tony Blair: In the end, we must find a way forward, and one that will be agreed on by everyone. I think that everyone accepts that, if we can possibly do so, it is best for us to do so with all the main political parties that have support in Northern Ireland being represented in the Government; but, as I explained in the speech of October 2002, that can only happen if it happens alongside not just an absolute undertaking to cease all forms of paramilitary activity, but a fulfilment of that undertaking. It is precisely this issue that is holding the situation up, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that there have been real gains in Northern Ireland as a result of the peace process.

Bob Blizzard: Now that there are record numbers of teachers in our schools and an unprecedentedly high level of pupil achievement, may we think about those who ensure that our children can cross the road safely to get to school? Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to school safety crossing patrol officers, who do such valuable work in looking after our children? Is he aware that some of them are little better off than they would have been had they stayed on benefits, which could be rectified if they received a higher level of earnings disregard? Will he look into that so that our lollipop men and women can be rightly rewarded?

Tony Blair: I know that my hon. Friend has tabled an early-day motion on school crossing patrol officers and I am happy to pay tribute to the fantastic job that they do. As for paying them more, he will also know that the new employment credit should help them to supplement their earnings. One reason why we have rising employment in this country is that, as well as having the minimum wage and the new deal, we are making work pay for people. Of course, we keep the level of their earnings under constant review.

Alex Salmond: Turning back to post office closures, in terms of public service, how can it be right that a busy sub-post office such as that at Buchanhaven in my constituency is offered 100,000 to close but no incentive, encouragement or support to stay open?

Tony Blair: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes but, again, that is an issue for which the Post Office must ultimately take responsibility. I am sure that he is making those points to the Post Office, but it must make sure that it can balance the books and that the financial systems are in place to enable it to work within the financial limits that it has set.

Joan Humble: My right hon. Friend will be aware of a recent report into child care by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. Further to his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), will he look at further expanding nursery provision and building on the provision that we have already seen in our schools? Good quality nursery care is vital to provide both an environment in which young children can socialise and the support that their parents so badly need.

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A few years ago, we promised a guaranteed part-time nursery place for every four-year-old, and we have now fulfilled that for every three-year-old. It is our intention to ensure that we continue with Sure Start, extra child care places and the new children's centres, so that we get comprehensive provision for the under-fives. As I said a moment ago, that is a solid investment in those children's future, which will repay a dividend not just to them but to the whole of society.

Patsy Calton: The Prime Minister has on previous occasions referred to the welcome 10 per cent. reduction in cancer mortality outcomes, which is largely due to a reduction in men's smoking and improvements in breast cancer care. However, will he and his Government look into the differences in outcomes between those from disadvantaged and those from advantaged groups? In particular, will he examine the effect of target-driven appointment systems on disadvantaged groups not getting their appointments when they should?

Tony Blair: The hon. Lady's point about the advances that have been achieved is right and it is worth pointing out that in the past few years we have managed to invite far more women for screening. We have also ensured that additional cancer equipment is going into our hospitals. However, her point on some of the more disadvantaged areas is also true. The truth is that the large majority of people now get access reasonably quickly, but we have to ensure that that is extended throughout. I hope that the additional investment, which will run into hundreds of millions of pounds over the next few years, will do that, but I entirely understand and accept the point that she makes.

Kerry Pollard: May I welcome the extra 3 billion that has just been announced for housing? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that money could be well used to reduce housing waiting lists and provide local housing for local people in my constituency and that it could enable key worker housing to be provided, thus helping to provide essential local services? Will he ensure that a good slice of that money goes to St. Albans?

Tony Blair: Of course, the money will be allocated on an entirely fair and objective basis, but my hon. Friend is right to welcome the substantial additional investment in housing, which enables us to ensure both that we bring up to proper standard some of the poorest social housing in our communities and that we have the key worker housing that we needthat point is incredibly important. That must go alongside an expansion in the number of houses, carefully targeted, with the majority on brownfield sites, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has outlined. If we do not provide additional housing in the south, it will be extremely difficult for people, and especially for young people trying to get on the housing ladder.

Arms Trade

Tony Baldry: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about any Treaty on International Arms Transfers adopted by an International Conference held under the auspices of the United Nations.
	It may help the House if I explain at the outset that the Bill has been prepared by eight members of the International Development Committee from all parties. As we undertake our work as a Select Committee, we are very conscious of the devastation caused by conflict in Africa and elsewhere, invariably perpetuated by small arms and other conventional weapons. Indeed, for sub-Saharan Africa and much of the world, the weapon of mass destruction is the AK47.
	Small arms are, sadly, all too often in the hands of children. It is reassuring news that, through the UN war crimes court in Sierra Leone, the UN will for the first time treat the enlistment of children as soldiers as a war crime under international law.
	The cost of such conflict is individual and tragic, and there is also a collective cost that the developing world cannot afford. It is obviously impossible in the time available to begin to describe the individual tragedies of hundreds of thousands of children and families in Africa and elsewhere, living in daily fear of armed violence, but let me give just one example.
	During the recent conflict, over 10 years or so, rebels in Sierra Leone deliberately drugged children to use them as child soldiers. As part of their terror campaign, these children with AK47s would target pregnant women and take bets on whether the foetus was male or female. That is the level of degradation that was reached.
	Today, the so-called Lord's Resistance Army in northern Uganda is still kidnapping children and forcing them to fight against their own families and friends. Uganda spends almost a quarter of its gross domestic product on arms, yet the World Bank ranks it 147th lowest on the human development index. Angola spends more than a third of its income on arms, yet it is rated 164th lowest.
	The Select Committee and all-party groups often hear evidence of why sub-Saharan Africa is going backwardshow, on existing evidence, the continent is unlikely to meet the 2015 millennium development goals. Yesterday, we had the very welcome launch by the Prime Minister of the Commission for Africa. One of the reasons why the region is going backwards is that Africa is a continent of conflict. It is estimated that $22 billion is spent every year on arms by countries the majority of whose population live on less than $1 a day. Conflict fuels poverty.
	Last year, the World Health Organisation estimated the economic loss to Africa of conflict at a staggering $15 billion a year. Typically, conflict leaves a country 15 per cent. poorer, with about 30 per cent. more people living in absolute poverty. Hon. Members may ask why I am introducing a ten-minute Bill. The reason is that, extraordinarily, despite the damage that many small arms and conventional weapons cause, there is still no binding comprehensive international law to control the export of conventional weapons. There is no international control on the proliferation of AK47s and similar weapons.
	In fairness, the UK Government have done much to ensure that this country's arms trade and defence sales respect human rights and development needs, and they also introduced the Export Control Act 2002. Much more needs to be done internationally, and given that the Government have made significant progress and led by example, they are clearly better placed to help take the lead internationally and to act as a standard-bearer for a more transparent and accountable arms trade throughout the world.
	A number of UK non-governmental organisations such as Oxfam and Amnesty International have drafted a suggested text for an arms trade treaty. It is a simple, clear document that defines the criteria against which any proposed transfer of conventional arms should be permitted. It would require states to incorporate those criteria into their national law, and to make regular public reports to an international registry of all arms transferred. Such a treaty would make it clear when arms exports are in breach of international law, and when the exporter has knowledgeor ought reasonably to have knowledgethat the arms will be used to violate international human rights or humanitarian law.
	Such a treaty would ensure that any state exporting weaponsnot only newly manufactured arms, but re-exported, second-hand weaponshas a clear responsibility to make certain that they are used in a manner consistent with standards already agreed under international law. It would require an exporting state to monitor closely what happens once the arms leave its borders, since the manner in which the recipient state will use the weapons might affect the lawfulness of the transfer. It would be an international means of control to ensure that all nations work to the same standard.
	The Bill would encourage the UK Government to act internationally to agree an arms trade treaty by 2006, and to prevent arms from being exported to destinations where they are likely to be used to commit grave violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Indeed, the House supported some of those principles during the progress of the Export Control Bill. On Third Reading, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), said in support of a Government amendment that
	the Government were very much aware of the depth of concern. We have addressed that concern first by strengthening the role played by guidance under the Bill, and secondly by putting beyond all doubt the Government's continuing commitment to sustainable development in the licensing process, together with all the other relevant consequences listed in the schedule.[Official Report, 24 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 630.]
	Indeed, the Foreign Secretary has already signalled some support for my Bill's principles. When giving evidence recently to the Quadripartite Committee, he said:
	We are having consultations on this. It goes without saying that if I felt an arms control treaty would deal with many of the problems which you have raised and we could get it through, I would be in favour of it. After all, we have signed up to all sorts of instruments in terms of arms control and there is no argument there, in principle, between us.
	Of course, not all countries would immediately accept the idea of an arms trade treaty, but that should not prevent us and others from forging ahead. Not all countries have signed the mine ban treaty, but since it came into force not a single country has openly traded anti-personnel land mines, and far fewer Governments are using them. Under the programme of action of the United Nations conference on small arms, Governments agreed
	to assess applications for export authorizations according to strict national regulations and procedures that cover all categories of small arms and light weapons and are consistent with States' existing responsibilities under international law.
	There are many genuinely well-intentioned statements of principles and best-practice guidelines on the arms trade, but there are no treaties or enforceable international legislation. The Bill seeks to encourage transparency, accountability and a legal framework for a responsible and legitimate arms trade. It would set out principles based on states' existing responsibilities according to international standards. It would pull together relevant international laws and standards that should apply to international arms transfers, such as the Geneva conventions, the mine ban treaty and the genocide convention.
	Early next year, the UK will assume the G8 presidency, and later in the year we will assume the EU presidency. The Bill seeks to encourage the UK Government to demonstrate robust political leadership by introducing an arms trade treaty that would help to reduce the risk to millions in Africa of conflict and misery. I hope that the House recognises that we will make little progress in meeting the millennium development goals and the various targets that we hope to achieve if conflict is still being perpetuated in the world due to the proliferation of small arms. I therefore hope that the House will give leave to introduce the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Tony Baldry, John Barrett, Mr. John Battle, Hugh Bayley, Mr. Tony Colman, Mr. Quentin Davies, Chris McCafferty and Tony Worthington.

Arms Trade

Tony Baldry accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about any treaty on international arms transfers adopted by an international conference held under the auspices of the United Nations: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 July, and to be printed [Bill 102].

Opposition Day
	  
	[10th Allotted DayFirst Part]

Housing

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and that there is a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Caroline Spelman: I beg to move,
	That this House regrets the Government's failure effectively to address the worsening problems of housing affordability, homelessness, sustainable development and house price inflation; laments the failure to diagnose correctly the underlying causes of house price inflation, including the insecurity of savings under the present Government; notes the Council of Mortgage Lenders' survey which found that 81 per cent. of the population aspire to home ownership and believes that key workers should not be penalized by high property prices; further regrets the rising numbers of vulnerable people living in temporary accommodation; urges the Government to explore new options for accessing empty homes to meet demand for social housing, as well as enabling people to move from social housing to owning their own homes; further notes that there was no ministerial statement or debate in Government time in response to the Barker Review which itself fails to provide acceptable solutions to these acute problems and poses a serious threat to the nation's green fields, to sustainable communities and to robust local democracy by its recommendation that housing targets be set at a regional level.
	When I entered the House in 1997, I made my maiden speech on saving the green belt known as the Meriden gap, which lies between Coventry and Birmingham, but never did I envisage the scale of the assault on that green lung. The Government's changes to planning have led to back gardens being ripped up for executive homes and to neighbour being set against neighbour, making housing almost the hottest issue in areas such as mine. Neither did I expect to stand here facing a Labour Government to lament a rise in homelessness and a decline in affordable housing.
	Difficult as it must be, the Government should first and foremost admit that something has gone seriously wrong. The public will not accept that the blame lies elsewhere. Seven years is a long time to be without a proper home. No one can be in any doubt about the seriousness of the housing crisis in this country. Only last week a front-page newspaper headline referred to house price inflation of 19 per cent. Most of us will know someone, usually a young person, who is struggling to get a foot on the property ladder. As MPs, we see constituency cases involving more and more people living in temporary accommodation.
	To their credit, the Government have conducted a reviewthe Barker review of housing, published on 17 March. I say that the Government have conducted a review, but it would be more accurate to say that the Treasury has conducted the review. I have to say that the Barker report bears all the hallmarks of Treasury-focused assessment rather than those of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or of an environment-based body of work.
	The Chancellor waxed enthusiastic on Budget day about the publication of the report, and we all know from his pre-Budget statement in November that he believes that the way to solve the housing crisis is simply to build more houses. There will always be house building, but using it as the key instrument for dealing with affordability is both misguided and na-ve. To believe that mass house building will solve the housing crisis is to misunderstand the nature of the problem. The pattern of misdiagnosing the nature of the problem and prescribing the wrong solution is common under this Government. It appears that their approach to housing is no exception.
	There are currently two separate but related problems. It is true that, as a country, we need to increase our housing stock, but there is another problemhouse price inflation. The reality is that house price inflationan economic trend that is snatching the property ladder away from so many peopleis in large part a consequence of the Government's own failings. I accept that housing shortages play a part in inflating prices, but even that gives rise to the question of what the Government have been doing for the past seven years to bring about such a decline in house building, bringing us to a position in which fewer new homes were built last year than at any time since 1924. That takes some doing.

Peter Pike: The hon. Lady came into the House in 1997. Between 1983 and 1997, 13 Conservative Ministers visited Burnley, where the problem is one of low demandquite different from what she is describing. The previous Conservative Government never did anything to deal with the problem in Burnley, and it has become horrendous, with 4,500 empty houses in the area. Does she accept that we had to wait for a Labour Government and their housing renewal pathfinder project to begin to tackle the problem?

Caroline Spelman: I fully understand the gravity of the problem in Burnley, and am deeply sympathetic to the needs of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. However, if he waits, he will see that later in my speech I shall come to the question of how to help in a constituency such as his. I think that the public will be more interested in what is going to happen in the future than in a retrospective analysis.
	It has not proved safe to save under Labour. Following the Chancellor's raid on pension funds, more people are buying property as a form of security for the future. In the absence of a Government statement on the Barker report that would have told us what they think about it, we will have to take the report as a proxy for Government thinking on the subject. The Government must use some of their own time in the House to state otherwise.
	We still have had no statement on the Barker review. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) for securing a debate on the subject in Westminster Hall last week. The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), said that work on the Barker report was getting under way, including consultation, so why do not the Government try to consult colleagues in Parliament? There have been calls from both sides of the House for a debate in Government time on housing.
	After all, the Government allowed the report to be published almost two months ago. It is not unreasonable that their silence might be construed as acceptance, at least of the report's main thrust. That would be a mistake, as I shall explain.
	The report is premised on a series of false assumptions. First, and quite fundamentally, I do not understand why the 2001 census findings were ignored as the basis for projecting demand. Not only is that information more recent than that used by Professor Barker, but the Government claimed that the 2001 census was a good deal more accurate than its predecessor. Crucially, it shows that there appear to be almost 1 million fewer inhabitants in this country than was previously thought. That may mean that the scale of the housing shortage is smaller than we thought.
	In addition, the report assumes that important demographic trendssuch as immigration levels, the birth rate and the level of single home ownershipwill remain the same. Given the social changes of the past few decades, that simply cannot be realistic.
	Professor Barker's key recommendation is for a huge increase in house building, but that is a very blunt instrument when it comes to tackling the underlying problem. For a start, it takes time to deliver house building on the scale envisaged in the Barker review, so it is not a solution that would deliver short-term relief. Furthermore, such a scramble to put up houses may well compromise standards and suppress efforts to find more eco-friendly building methods.
	New build accounts for only 1 per cent. of UK housing stock. Most people buy or rent existing properties, so surely the most immediate solution to housing shortages is to make more of the existing housing stock available. There are still 718,000 empty homes in this country, and my party is looking at what could be done to bring more of them into use.
	Another fundamental problem is that plenty of houses are available, but in the wrong places. The flight from our cities to the countryside is not sustainable, in any sense. In my view, it is a symptom of the Government's policies across the board on transport, crime and education.
	When I go to my constituency, the Meriden gap is a strip of green belt five miles wide that holds the cities of Birmingham and Coventry apart, lest they coalesce into an even greater conurbation in the west midlands. Yet if one catches the train into Birmingham from my constituency, one travels across great swathes of derelict land that are ripe for regeneration and, potentially, housing. Commuters have to make that journey at varying degrees of rapidity, polluting the atmosphere and adding to their working day. Surely that cannot be the most sensible planning model for the future.
	There are similar tracts of land throughout the country, and we should be reclaiming them. Instead, the Government have offered us their sustainable communities plan. How could they ignore the environmental imperative, which is immediately apparent to all, that if there is one region in the country least well equipped to cope with a huge additional burden of houses it is the south-east? The south-east currently has 30 per cent. less water reserves than it had a decade ago, and the rate of decline is increasing. That is in addition to transport and other infrastructure requirements, which together make a persuasive case that further house building in the south-east is unsustainable.
	Milton Keynes is another example. The hospital there was originally built to serve a population of 15,000, but we have seen the town expand almost exponentially. Now, a sustainable communities plan would add even more housing to put pressure on basic infrastructure, such as the hospital that has to serve that catchment area. How can that be called a sustainable community? Or consider the Thames gateway project, where land assigned for house building is at risk of flooding, in a region expected to see a 31 cm rise in sea levels by 2050. How can that be sustainable?
	Last week, I visited the proposed site of a new building programme near Ashford, in Kent. Kent is the garden of England, but it is at risk of becoming a patio under the Government's house building plans. Why do the Government have a fixation with building in the south-east? It is extraordinary that a Labour Government should turn their back on what they like to term their heartlands in the north. The Government have completely overlooked the potential that the north offers for addressing the nation's housing needs. The Government provide a framework in which individuals must make choices about where to work and live. Demand for housing will change. For example, Oracle has moved its business from the M4 corridor, where it had exhausted the skilled labour supply, to my constituency to tap into the pool of labour available in the midlands and the better infrastructure.

Dari Taylor: Is the hon. Lady so unaware of what is happening in the north-east, where local authorities with clued-in policies are using stock transfer, derelict land and the arm's length housing associations to renew housing? Has she not visited the area and seen what progressive Labour authorities are doing with the support of a Labour Government?

Caroline Spelman: I am well aware of what is happening, but I regret the paucity of ambition. So much more needs to be done. I am all the more aware of that having paid a visit to North Tyneside council, which has a Conservative elected mayor and is now run by the Conservatives. We have brought 7.5 million of regeneration money to the area, to provide regeneration that never happened during the long period of Labour hegemony.
	So many towns and cities north of Milton Keynes could benefit so much from spreading economic growth up from London and the south-east and more evenly across the country. What is wrong with Birmingham, for example? In common with other cities such as Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle, the central business district has been regenerated. We have the exciting new Bull Ring, but it is surrounded by a collar of decay and dereliction. Surely that is where the Government should focus their attention, rather than the easy option of greenfield sites.
	The Government have a target of 60 per cent. new build on brownfield, but it is just not happening. To accept the Barker recommendations would be to take the brakes off planning in the green belt and double the house building target. It will just increase the huge skirt of concrete round our hollowed out cities and destroy for ever the green and pleasant land that characterises this country.

Karen Buck: The hon. Lady makes a strong case for the development of the north-east. If a Conservative Mayor is elected in London in June, will that mean the cancellation of the housing development in the Thames gateway which is designed to accommodate the projected increase of 800,000 people in the Greater London area?

Caroline Spelman: We are in an election campaign period and the hon. Lady should await the outcome of the election. As a party we are, of course, optimistic.
	The flipside of house building in the countryside is successful urban regeneration, but as the debate in Westminster Hall on this subject last week showed the Government have met real problems with their programme. Some 20 to 25 regeneration initiatives are due to end in 2006 and hon. Members were asking how those projects will be sustained. The House of Commons Library has identified at least 48 different sources of funding for regeneration, and the need to cobble together all those sources locks up project managers very inefficiently. Just because the Government got their fingers burnt in a few schemes, such as Aston Pride, they should not get cold feet. Does it not illustrate a paucity of ambition on the part of the Government that, according to an alliance of the Chartered Institute of Housing, the National Housing Federation and the Local Government Association, only 50 per cent. of the areas deemed at risk of decline are covered by any regeneration strategy and funding?

Brian Iddon: It sounds as though we are entering a period of enlightenment on the part of the Conservative party. However, I remind the hon. Lady that Conservative regeneration policies were sadly wrong, because they were not prepared to tackle the community needs at the same time as regenerating the houses. Is she prepared to support a regional assembly in the north-west, which would attempt all the things that she is preaching to the Government today? More importantly, if the Conservatives ever got into power again, would they put the cash on the table?

Caroline Spelman: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman finds my speech enlightened, but I have always held these views. I feel passionately about the issue and it is one of the reasons I entered politics. As I travel round this country and see what needs to be done in terms of regeneration, it reinforces my passion to tackle the issue. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about regional assemblies. In case he has not noticed, I can tell him that my party opposes regional assemblies because we fervently believe that important decisions on planning and regeneration should rest with democratically elected local councillors who are closest to those needs and answerable to the electorate on the doorstep. Regional assemblies would take those powers away from local government, and that is the source of our strong opposition to them.
	Fundamentally, those regeneration projects that are under way will fail if the communities do not have ownership of them. Too often Government try to impose projects on a community rather than involving a community from the outset. Without that partnership and roots-up regeneration, so many of these projects are destined to failure.
	The insistence by Government on dictating to communities how they should live gets a new twist from the Barker report, which recommends that planning decisions should be taken away from local government and given to new regional planning bodiesand that relates to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). That would remove an important decision-making power from a democratically elected council and give it to an unelected body, in yet another assault on our democratic rights. I begin to wonder what the Government believe local government is for. Surely a local councillor is better placed to assess the impact of a planning decision on his or her locality than a regional officer who may be literally hundreds of miles away.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In fact, the situation is worse than my hon. Friend suggests. Under recommendation 6, Barker recommends that regional planning bodies and regional housing boards should be merged to create a single body to manage regional housing markets and to deliver regional affordability targets. After seven years of failure in housing, all that the Government can do is suggest more layers of government and more bureaucracy. Does my hon. Friend think that that will solve the problem?

Caroline Spelman: I do not think that it will solve the problem at all; it is further evidence of regionalisation by stealth. The Government will continue to feel our opposition to that as our friends in another place demonstrate their defence of our democratic rights in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill.
	Before Labour were elected, they said that we must not allow our precious green space to become easy prey to developers, yet the Barker report shows that talk really is cheap for the Government. Now we hear that they want to relax green belt planning laws, remove local obstacles to planning and impose huge, environmentally unsustainable house building targets in the south-east. The Deputy Prime Minister even says openly that he is sick of people shouting about protecting greenfield sites.
	The fact is that every sod of turf torn up from a greenfield site to make way for new housing development is an indictment of the Government's failed housing policy. It is an indictment of their failure to stimulate economic growth evenly throughout the country. It is an indictment of their failure to regenerate urban brownfield sites as a sustainable alternative location for new houses. It is an indictment of their fixation with centralised decision making and of their narrow focus on supply-side economics as the sole means of addressing affordability.

Clive Betts: Does the hon. Lady accept that it is also an indictment of the 18 years when her party was in power? That resulted in massive cuts in modernisation programmes for council housing and the ending of schemes such as enveloping to bring private sector housing up to standard. No attempt was made to regenerate the coalfields, and there were no policies to encourage building on brownfield sites while we saw building on one greenfield site after another throughout the country.

Caroline Spelman: Labour Members clearly do not like what I am saying, but their arguments are wearing a bit thin. I am not looking backwards but forwards. However, I fought in a Nottinghamshire constituency in 1992 and I recall that it was the Conservatives who set up the coalfields communities campaign, so it is not true to say that nothing was done for those communities.

Peter Atkinson: As we are looking at the Conservative record, my hon. Friend has no doubt visited the centre of Newcastle upon Tyne and seen the tremendous riverside development there, which has been praised throughout Europe. That was done by the Conservative party, which set up the Tyne and Wear development corporation. If my hon. Friend has visited the historic centre of the city, she will have seen Granger town where a renewal project initiated by our right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) when he was a Minister has just been completed.

Caroline Spelman: I am grateful for that intervention from my hon. Friend. He was in the House at that time so he can put the record straight. He also gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). I think it is generally acknowledged that issues such as how to breathe life back into our cities are close to his heart. It is the Conservatives who will really deliver on that regeneration.

Alistair Burt: Does my hon. Friend also recall the tremendous city challenge projects that the Conservative Government introduced, especially in areas of dereliction and on brownfield sites? The Conservative Government and Michael Heseltine led on ideas such as the initiative to demolish the Moss Side flats in Manchester to redevelop an estate that has been part of the regeneration of that city.

Caroline Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend who has given us yet another example that helps to counterbalance the indictment made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) when he said that nothing had been achieved in 18 years. I can add to those examples by reference to the successful city challenge project in Tipton in the west midlands region, whence I hail.

David Wright: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Spelman: No, I want to proceed.
	My party has always supported the aspiration to home ownership and has pioneered ways of extending affordability to more and more people. Whatever they may claim, Labour Members still appear to have something of a hang-up about property ownership. Research commissioned by the Council of Mortgage Lenders shows that 82 per cent. of the population aspire to own their own home, so surely the Government are being arrogant when they ignore that aspiration. Worse, they are guilty of thwarting the aspirations of many people, with policies such as the abolition of MIRASmortgage interest relief at sourcethe imposition of stamp duty on first-time buyers and soaring stealth taxes such as council tax, which has increased by 70 per cent. since Labour came to power.
	Is it any wonder that the number of first-time buyers entering the property market is the lowest since records began? The sheer scale of the housing crisis requires fresh thinking. Members on both sides of the Chamber can contribute to the solution if the Government are willing to listen.
	My party is consulting widely because we recognise the need to address affordability and sustainability, and to provide high-quality social housing. We must enable people to take the first step on the property ladder; we must develop ways of bringing people through social housing to home ownership

Andy King: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Spelman: No, I am coming to the end of my remarks[Interruption.] I was making an important point.
	We must defend the needs of key workers, who should not be penalised, or excluded from the opportunity of home ownership, for the service they give our country.
	The Barker report poses more questions than it solves. In the Government's stony silence on the report, the voices of the homeless and of those who aspire to a better home, as well as of those who truly value Britain's landscape, go unanswered. But we have heard them; we share their hopes and the next Conservative Government will deliver.

Keith Hill: I beg to move, To leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	commends the Government's record on housing, and the progress it has made in delivering sustainable communities, as set out in Making it Happen: The Northern Way and elsewhere; notes that one million more people own their homes now than in 1997, whilst mortgage rates are at their lowest since the 1950s; notes that since 1997 there are one million fewer social homes below the decency standard and welcomes the Government's approval of 58 new schemes that could make decent another 170,000 social homes; applauds the fact that the number of families with children in bed and breakfast accommodation for longer than six weeks has reduced by at least 99.3 per cent. since March 2002; supports the Government's plans in the Thames Gateway and newer growth areas to deliver new sustainable communities and provide an extra 200,000 homes; further welcomes the action the Government has taken to support the creation of 230,000 affordable homes since 1997, to help over 10,000 key workers into home ownership in areas of high demand, and to reduce rough sleeping to the lowest level since records began; further supports the Government's creation of a 500 million Market Renewal Fund to tackle the worst cases of low housing demand and abandonment; applauds the creation of regional housing boards to ensure investment is focused on regional priorities; and welcomes the fact that the Government has added 25,000 hectares to the greenbelt with a further 12,000 hectares in prospect, and is exceeding its brownfield target, having built 64 per cent. of new homes on previously developed land in 2003.
	I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on what I believe was her debut speech at the Dispatch Box in her new shadow capacity. I would also like to thank her. They say that timing is all in politics, so I thank her for having timed this debate to perfection. It has been called on the very day on which the Government are celebrating the success of our decent homes programme. It is the day on which we are celebrating the reduction by 1 million in the number of substandard homes since we came to power in 1997, and on which we are announcing major new investments in our programme to renew social housing.
	Why is that investment necessary? Why was it necessary in the first place for the Government to embark on our decent homes programme? The answer lies in Tory indifference and neglect of those living in council houses and other forms of social housing. The horrifying fact is that, when the Government came to power in 1997, we faced a 19 billion backlog of repairs to council and housing association properties. In 1997, an amount of homes equivalent to all those in the entire west midlands region2.1 million homesfailed to meet the standards of decency that tenants deserve, so our first priority in housing policy was to put that right. That is why we released more than 5 billion in local authority capital receipts for investment in refurbishing council homes. That is why we have continued to invest year on year to make public housing decent.

Dari Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the housing programme for people in the north-east in the 1980s and 1990s was coloured by two factors? First, we could not obtain sufficient money from the housing improvement programme because the then Government denied us the right to modernise and repair. The second factor, which was caused by financial deregulation under the Conservatives, was negative equitya scar across my constituency and the whole north-east.

Keith Hill: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I share her passion and I shall talk about negative equity in due course. We are in the process of putting right that historical wrong suffered by people living in her regionthe north-eastand by her constituents. I am delighted to say that I met some of her constituents today at our celebration of the decent homes programme. They are over the moon about what the Government have been able to offer them through that programme.

David Wright: Is it not interesting that the Conservatives talk a lot about choice in relation to local authority housing refurbishment, but the only option available under the Conservatives was transfer or nothing? Did not this Labour Government provide local authorities with different options to bring new investment into local authority housing? We should be congratulated on doing that.

Keith Hill: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have offered a variety of routes to improve council housing stock. Above all, we have vastly increased the investment in improving the housing stock. The Government and the Labour party believe in social housing and in offering serious opportunities for tenant empowerment. The purpose of our decent homes programme is not merely to improve the physical fabric of our estates, but to provide the opportunity for tenants to take control of their own lives. As they have told me today and previously, the whole programme is bringing them a sense of self-respect and power over their lives that they never enjoyed before, and I am immensely proud of that.
	In fact, under this Government, more than 1 million tenants are better off; 1 million fewer homes are left neglected; and 1 million fewer homes are left unrepaired. That is a great achievement, and we are on track to make every home in the public sector decent by 2010. Our decent homes programme is offering people warm, weatherproof and more modern homes. We are installing new facilities, such as new kitchens, bathrooms and central heating, and better insulation. Many of us take those things for granted, but they mean a huge amount to people who have not got them.

Caroline Spelman: I wish to intervene because I am concerned that the right hon. Gentleman might not be minded to give way to other colleagues. I want to make the point that it depends what he means by the word decent. Perhaps he will be aware while trumpeting today's announcement that the Construction Products Association has voiced its scepticism about the Government's self-defined targets for decency in housing standards being ambitious enough.

Keith Hill: I am trying to maintain my calm, but I really do think that that is downright cheek from a party that was so concerned about the conditions in which council house tenants lived that, at the end of its period of government in the 1990s and after seven Housing Ministers, it left them with a 19 billion backlog of repairs.

Andrew Turner: rose

Keith Hill: Oh, gosh! How can I resist the hon. Gentleman?

Andrew Turner: Why were so many of those houses under the control of Labour councils? Some Labour-controlled councils, such as that on which I served, successfully introduced exactly that sort of renovation programmes in the 1980s. Why were some Labour authorities so bad, when others were so good?

Keith Hill: Because those councils were suffering, year on year, from cuts in housing investment under the previous Administration.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister is trying to make a good case out of something that is pretty poor. Will he explain why the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Ministeran all-party Committeesaid:
	more and more people cannot afford to buy or rent a home . . . more families than ever are in temporary housing . . . The number of homeless households in temporary accommodation is now the highest ever?
	If that is not a damning indictment of the Government's housing programme, I do not know what is. Will he also explain why the Government are building only half the number of affordable houses today as when we left office in 1997?

Keith Hill: At least we are building houses where they are needed. Of course, under the hon. Gentleman's Administration, large numbers of houses were built at the bottom of the recession, but they were built in places where they were not needed. I suggest that he visit some of our northern cities, where he will observe houses built in the 1990s that are now standing idle because there was never a demand for them in the first place. We are building where the demand is. Admittedly, construction and labour costs are high in those places. I fully confess that it is difficult to acquire the kind of output that we would desire from the new, high levels of investment that we are putting into social housing, but I am delighted to report that we expect the Housing Corporation to produce a 50 per cent. increase in the number of social and affordable homes in the next two years.

Oona King: Further to what my right hon. Friend says, is he not astonished that many of the houses built by the Conservative party were demolished without ever having been let? Moreover, the Conservatives' solution to the homelessness problem was to take away homeless families' rights to seek temporary accommodationsurely one of the most shameful things that any British Government have ever done?

Keith Hill: My hon. Friend, who is a great expert in such matters, is absolutely right. In fact, the Government's more liberal interpretation of the homelessness rules has led to an increase in the number of households counted as homeless. Nevertheless, there is good news to report in that direction, too.

Several hon. Members: rose

Keith Hill: If colleagues will forgive me, I hope to make some progress towards providing further good news. However, as we have not heard an intervention from the minor parties, I will allow the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) to intervene.

Matthew Green: A couple of minutes ago, the Minister saidI wrote it down exactlyWe are building where the demand is. If that is true, when a local authority requests extra housing allocation, why does he fail to give it?

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman alludes to a semi-public exchange that we have had on such matters. I am aware of the pressures in his local authority. As he knows, there have been trade-offs in the regional distribution of social housing, but I am alert to the pressures and, as he also knows, I am not entirely unsympathetic to the case that he is making.
	I draw the attention of the House to the enormous progress that has been made in social housing as a result of the decent homes programme. Let us look at the difference we have made: 650,000 homes with new central heating; 240,000 with new kitchens; and 180,000 with new bathrooms. And today, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has announced a package of 3 billion to tackle problems in even more homes. A possible 170,000 homes could benefit from that package. That is more than the total number of dwellings in Bristol, which gives an indication of the scale of that commitment.
	That 3 billion package covers 58 new housing improvement schemes, including 1.8 billion for 12 new arm's-length housing management organisationsALMOs1 billion in public-private funding for 37 new housing stock transfer schemes, and 370 million for nine new housing private finance initiative schemes. All those are schemes that local people have chosen for themselves and that have a proven record in delivering decent homes.
	In the three years to 200506, the Government will invest a massive 8 billion to improve council housing. That is three times more than the sum that we inherited in 1997. Since 1997, average investment in each council home has increased by 55 per cent. in real terms. Not only have we improved homes for more than 1 million people, but we have given tenants more control over the way that their homes are managed. So the Government need no lessons about housing from the Conservative party.
	Under the last Tory Government, homelessness became a way of life for too many people. Bed-and-breakfast hotels were no longer just holiday venues at the seasidepeople began to think that such hotels were an acceptable way of dealing with homelessness. That was particularly shocking, as often families with children were living in inappropriate bed-and-breakfast accommodation for long periods. This week, in addition to today's announcement on decent homes, we have already announced that we have ended the scandal of families having to bring up their children in bed-and-breakfast hotels. I am pleased to say that we have met the target to ensure that no family with children has to live in a bed-and-breakfast hotel for longer than six weeksdown from 11,000 in 2001.

Peter Pike: I welcome the good news from the Government. Although it was not mentioned in the Conservative motion or by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)it is, however, included in our amendmentis it not a fact that the Labour Government are committed to housing renewal projects in areas of low demand such as Burnley and other parts of the country that are experiencing major problems?

Keith Hill: My hon. Friend is quite right, and I hope to allude to the programme of housing market renewal later. A sum of 500 million has been made available for the regeneration of areas of low housing demand in cities in the north and the north midlands. Earlier, my hon. Friend made an eloquent intervention on the subject, to which he is extremely committed.

Brian Iddon: In contrast to the news that my right hon. Friend has just given us, when I was housing chairman in the metropolitan borough of Bolton the Conservatives cut housing resources by a massive 70 per cent. Would my right hon. Friend be surprised if I said that I do not believe what the Opposition spokesmen are saying today?

Keith Hill: My hon. Friend is quite right, and I am not in the least surprised that he does not believe a word of what the Opposition have said. I have visited Bolton in his company and seen the excellent new investment in the town that has been made as a result of the Labour Government's commitment to housing improvement.

Caroline Spelman: I thank the Minister for giving way to me a second time, but how does he answer Shelter's appraisal of his announcement on homelessness? Of course it is good that 4,000 families have been moved out of temporary accommodation, but Shelter argues that the Government have not included in their calculation asylum seekers or families placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation by social services departments. The Government have also ignored council and housing association-run hostel accommodation, which is equally unsuitable for families with children.

Keith Hill: With respect, I am more inclined to trust definitions from local authoritiesthe figures that I gave were from local authoritiesthan from Shelter. More to the point, however, the hon. Lady attempted in her speech to create an intellectual construct to defend nimbyism. In the lead-up to the next general election, her party is mounting a defence of nimbyism. She made a rather shallow effort at doing so herself, but she will not get away with it, as she made no commitment to increase the number of homes to deal with the problem of homelessness.

Jim Knight: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the lack of affordable housing in Dorset and across the south-west. Has he received any representations or constructive suggestions from the Opposition about tackling that problem? All I hear is criticismI do not hear anything constructive at all.

Keith Hill: My hon. Friend is right. If I ever get to my peroration, I intend to make that point myself. I have scanned the Conservatives' housing proposals, but there is only one to deal with such problemsit would extend the right to buy to housing associations. The Conservatives make the fascinating proposition that for every two housing association properties that are sold, one new housing association home will be built. The party appears to be concerned about homelessness, to which social housing is the obvious solution. I stand to be corrected, but its proposals are not a recipe for expanding the provision of such housing.
	In the past six weeks, the Government have announced a new 690 million programme for housing essential key workers; a new scheme to turn surplus national health service and Ministry of Defence land into 15,000 new homes; a 150 million programme to turn derelict sites into urgently needed new homes for London; more investment to tackle low demand in South Yorkshire, Oldham, Rochdale and east Lancashire; nearly 500 million for existing arm's-length housing organisations to help improve the lives of thousands of tenants; and more than 3 billion for the Housing Corporation to increase the supply of affordable homes. Again, we need no lessons from the Opposition about housing.
	Under the last Tory Government, rough sleeping began to be regarded as an unavoidable reality. This Government were not prepared to accept that, and we have reduced rough sleeping to well below two thirds of 1998 levels. The number of rough sleepers in 2004 is the lowest ever recorded. Who can forgetI know that Labour Members cannotthat in 1992, 1.2 million households suffered from negative equity, and that between 1990 and 1997 nearly 0.5 million homes were repossessed? Mortgages averaged 11 per cent., hitting a peak of 17 per cent. That was the Tory housing policy. But mortgage rates are now at their lowest level since the 1950s, following an unprecedented period of low and stable interest rates from which home owners throughout the UK have benefited, enabling them to plan for the future with confidence.
	We have heard that the Government apparently have a visceral resistance to greater home ownership, but there are now more home owners than ever before. As Kate Barker pointed out in her recent report, since 1997, 1 million more people now own their own homes. At just over 15 million, England has the largest number of home owners in recorded history, but I accept that we need to do better. We need to build more homes and expand the supply of affordable housing. In contrast to the Tory period of year-on-year cuts in investment, since 1997 we have doubled investment in council housing and new affordable homes. We have unlocked 8.5 billion of private investment through stock transfers to housing associations, and we have invested over 1 billion in key worker housingthree times the previous annual rate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) pointed out, we have at the same time created a 500 million fund to tackle market renewal in areas of low demand for housing. In areas of high demand, we are implementing a 600 million investment programme to create the social and physical infrastructure necessary for housing growth.

Several hon. Members: rose

Keith Hill: There is a bottomless pit of demand for my attention, and hon. Members will know that I am always conscious of the need for Front Benchers to keep it short in these brief debates when many other colleagues wish to speak. I cannot resist giving way to my official opposite number, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), but afterwards I must exercise self-restraint.

John Hayes: The Minister is, as ever, generous, and I am grateful to him for giving way. He talked about the Barker review and the need to build more houses. One of Kate Barker's recommendations is for a development land tax. Does he support that?

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman refers to the planning gain supplement. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that the Government are considering the proposal and that we expect to make a response in 2005.

Richard Younger-Ross: Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill: No.
	Since 1997, as I have said, we have doubled the funding for social housing and supported the creation of 230,000 new affordable homes. We have increased the number of housing association homes from 22,000 a year in 2001 to 29,000 in 2005, but we are determined to do better, and by 2006, the extra investment in affordable homes will increase the number of new housing association homes to over 34,000 a yeara 50 per cent. increase in five years. More than 10,000 key workers in our front-line public services, including health, education and the police, have been helped into home ownership through our starter home initiative. Last month, we announced the new 690 million key worker living scheme, which will help a further 16,500 key worker households into new homes in high demand areas by 2006.

Karen Buck: rose

Keith Hill: I cannot resist giving way to my highly knowledgeable colleague.

Karen Buck: There has been a glaring omission from my right hon. Friend's speech, which I feel it necessary to correct. He has made no mention of that embodiment of Conservative housing policy demonstrated by Dame Shirley Porter and Westminster city council Conservative members. On the subject of housing investment, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Labour councillors past and present who have pursued Dame Shirley and her colleagues for 15 years, and who last week saw their pressure bear fruit when Dame Shirley agreed to repay 12.3 million, the balance of which will be invested in new housing opportunities in Westminster, with no thanks whatever to the Conservative party?

Keith Hill: I thought I would save that morsel for my hon. Friend. I am delighted to congratulate those Labour councillors. I also congratulate her and other hon. Members on their pursuit of justice in the matter.

Several hon. Members: rose

Keith Hill: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross), then to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard), and I might give way again as I approach the end of my observations.

Richard Younger-Ross: I thank the Minister kindly for giving way. He spoke about the right to buy and home ownership, but he seems to be falling into the same trap as the Conservatives did in the 1980s, by putting the right to own a property above all else. Does he agree that one of the reasons why people seek to buy property is as an investment, rather than as a home as we would expect? It is their seeking an investment that leads to house price inflation, which is the reason for the lack of affordability of homes. Ought he not to be tackling that?

Keith Hill: As the hon. Gentleman went on, I began to regret giving way to him. In so far as I understand his point

Richard Younger-Ross: rose

Keith Hill: I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to clarify furtherheaven forfend. As I understand it, he was making a point about people's desire to use property for investment purposes. That is not something that the Government wish to challenge, but we are taking firm action through the Housing Bill to put a stop to the scandal of the commercial exploitation of the right to buy, which is wreaking such havoc not only in some of our major urban areas, but quite widely throughout the country.

Kerry Pollard: Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to sort out the West of Stevenage development, where several thousand houses were due to be built many years ago? Not one house has been built, and that is causing blight across the whole of Hertfordshire. My constituency, St. Albans, has been jam-packed because of the need for housing. That has been going on for a long time because of the intransigence of Tory-controlled Hertfordshire county council.

Keith Hill: Well, there you go. My hon. Friend's point is well taken. It is symptomatic of the problems that we face, and it is why the Opposition are trying to find a way of justifying such continued intransigence against the obvious need for more building.

Several hon. Members: rose

Keith Hill: I regret that I cannot give way any further at present.
	Since 1997, 900,000 new homes have been built in England, but again I say that we need to do better. That is why I am pleased to report that we have begun to see an increase in housing supply, with 14 per cent. more new homes built in London and the south-east in 200203 than in the year before, and we are supporting that new build with huge new investments. Total housing capital investment has tripled, with capital allocations rising to 5 billion in 200506, compared with 1.61 billion in 199798.
	The new homes that we need must, however, be in sustainable communities. In planning for more homes in areas of high demand, we must avoid the mistakes of the Tory past when too many soulless estates were built at the expense of creating neighbourhoods where people want to live and build a future for themselves, their family and their community. The 22 billion sustainable communities plan that we launched in February 2003 marked a step change in our approach to housing and communitiesa step change in approach not just to the provision of more affordable homes, but to improving existing homes and creating communities that people are proud to live in.
	We have identified growth areas in London and the south-east, and in the south midlands. Our long-term plans for the Thames gateway and the other growth areasMilton Keynes and the south midlands, Ashford, London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterboroughwill provide for sustainable communities built mainly on brownfield land along major transport corridors, such as the channel tunnel rail link. Combined with London, those growth areas have the potential to deliver an extra 200,000 homes, above the 930,000 planned, and more than 300,000 jobs by 2016. However, I emphasise that the communities plan is not just about growth in the south-east.

Bob Spink: The Minister speaks a lot about communities. Does he believe in listening to the voice of local communities such as mine in Castle Point, which he visited a few weeks ago? He stood on the beautiful green land at the west of Canvey Island, surveyed the wonderful wildlife habitat there, and told the local paper that the best way of conserving that was to build on it. Does he not know how silly he looked in the local press and how much damage he did to the local Labour party on Canvey Island, which will now lose every seat in the local elections?

Keith Hill: That is another object lesson in not believing anything one reads in the newspapers.
	I was speaking about our commitment to the north of England and the towns in the north midlands. There is a new confidence and energy in many of our northern towns and cities, but more remains to be done. We want to quicken the pace of change and spread growth and success beyond the core cities into the wider community. That is why we have set up a specific taskforce working to create a long-term vision for economic growth in the north of Englanda northern way. This work has the potential to change the entire perception of the north from regions in decline requiring regeneration to regions of imagination, innovation and growth. We also know, however, that in some parts of the north and the midlands where traditional industries have declined, demand for housing has collapsed and thousands of homes lie abandoned. Around 1 million homes in some 120 local authorities are affected by low demand.
	Turning around those communities will require a long-term commitment. That is why we have created a new three-year 500 million market renewal fund to start revitalising nine of the worst low-demand areas. We have linked housing renewal with regeneration programmes worth more than 850 million in the nine pathfinders. In addition, we have put in place a 500 million 10-year regeneration programme targeted at coalfield communities, many of which also suffer from low demand. The communities plan is not just about dealing with growth in the south-east and low demand in parts of the north; it is a national programme to improve housing and communities.
	A good quality local environment is vital to a sustainable community. That is why we have increased local authority spending on creating a cleaner, safer, greener environment in our cities and towns from 1.9 billion in 200102 to 2.2 billion in 200203. We are putting extra resources into improving our streets, parks and public places and making better design a key driver for change. We are taking action to tackle street crime and antisocial behaviour, and we are investing in neighbourhood support schemes such as Sure Start, and the children's fund.
	Under the sustainable communities plan we are providing an extra 201 million over three years to help transform the local environment, including a new 89 million so-called liveability fund for 75 projects to improve streets, parks and public spaces. We are providing 70 million for community-led groups, such as Groundwork, to improve the local environment, and 91 million for neighbourhood and street wardens in more than 500 communities. More than 3,000 wardens are now in place, and the latest study, which was published last month, shows a 28 per cent. drop in crime in neighbourhood warden areas.
	I remind the House that this Government have added 25,000 hectares to the green belt and ensured that more than 60 per cent. of all new housing is built on brownfield sites. Under this Government, the density of house building has been increased, so more homes are being built on less land. The Conservative Government unleashed out-of-town shopping malls, until their Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), had to step in to put a stop to such developments. Under the Conservative Government, only 50 per cent. of new housing was built on brownfield sites, which contrasts with the 64 per cent. figure achieved under this Government. If we were still building at the density achieved under the Tories, massive swathes of concrete would have been poured into the countryside.
	This Government have nothing to be ashamed of, and I am proud to set before the House our record on creating sustainable communities. As one of my hon. Friends said, we have heard a string of criticisms from the Tories. We understand that the hon. Member for Meriden attempted to create an intellectual construct for nimbyismshe failedbut what are the Opposition proposing? What is Tory housing policy? The House will be delighted to hear that I have checked the website, which is called, Conservatives.comTrusting People. The answer is that the policy is under reviewit appears that the people must trust the Conservatives just that little bit longer. But why wait? The shadow Chancellor has spoken, and we all know that he has freezes and cuts in mind, which are exactly what the hon. Member for Meriden is considering, because the bottom line to her speech was a cut in investment in housing and regeneration.
	The Tory party's spending plans would mean a 400 million cut in the housing budget in 200708 by real-terms comparison with 200506. What would a 400 million cut mean? It would mean halving the entire investment programme for decent homes in the west midlands, which is the area represented by the hon. Member for Meriden. It would mean cuts in funding for key worker housing; it would mean cuts in the budget for tackling the problems of low-demand housing; it would mean cuts in the budget for helping the homeless; and it would mean cuts in the budget to help increase new housing in the Thames gateway and other growth areas.
	The truth is that we have been there before with the Tories. They increased the number of council homes in need of urgent repair to more than 2 million; we halved it. They increased mortgage rates; we halved them. They doubled the rate of repossessions and negative equity; we reduced them to close to zero. They doubled the number of homeless families with children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation; we reduced it to zero. They doubled the number of people sleeping rough on our streets; we cut it by two thirds.
	We doubled investment for affordable housing; the Conservatives halved it. We doubled investment for council homes; they halved it. We doubled investment for key worker housing; and, under their spending plans, they would halve it. We are making decent homes and sustainable communities happen. Don't let the Tories wreck it again.

Matthew Green: I start by apologising on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who was to have spoken today; he has a stinker of a cold and has asked me to step in.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on her first speech in her new role, and I wish her a longer occupation of that position than some of her predecessors. While it is true that I have only been speaking on ODPM matters for 18 months now, three Conservative Members have occupied the lead position on the subject during that period, and there were seven different Conservative Housing Ministers in post during the 1990s. Perhaps the Conservative party do not have a housing policy because those responsible were not in post long enough to invent one.
	We shall support the Conservative motion, which does not contain anything with which we disagree, although I must say that the motion leaves a lot out, and I suspect that if the Conservatives had a policy to enumerate, we would not support it. Given what the hon. Member for Meriden said, however, we shall support the motion.
	I shall touch on a few of the reasons why we shall support the motion before offering some positive alternatives and trying to fill the vacuum left by the hon. Member for Meriden, who failed completely. I expected a policy, but her speech did not contain one, although she rightly highlighted some of the problems and I agree with her criticisms of the Barker review and the assumptions on which it is based.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on most of his remarks on the Barker review in last week's Adjournment debate, and I agree with his assessment of the review's fundamental flaws. The Barker review adopts a top-down approach and examines the housing problem from a national economic viewpoint, but it fails to understand what drives house price inflation and affordability. For instance, it assumes that house price inflation is driven by the economic engine of London and the south-east, but house price inflation in areas such as the Pennines, Cumbria, the Welsh Marches and Cornwall is faster than that in London and the south-east. That process is not driven by high wages; it is driven by people selling up in London and the south-east and retiring to such areas.
	The Barker review's flimsy assessment only scratches the surface. Bearing in mind that the ODPM did not commission the report, I hope that it does not rely on it too much. The Treasury sometimes foists schemes on the ODPMfor example, the planning zones that the Chancellor wanted to include in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Billand I hope that the ODPM does not take the Barker review too much to heart, and that it uses the statistics before moving on to more productive ground.

Andrew Love: Will the hon. Gentleman accept the major thrust of the Barker review, which is that lack of supply is a major contributory factor to house price inflation?

Matthew Green: Lack of supply is one of the contributory factors. The problem with the Barker review is that it considers lack of supply to be the sole driver for house price inflation.

Andrew Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Matthew Green: I gave way and answered the question.

David Drew: I do not want to repeat my debate with the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), whom I am pleased to see in his seat. Does the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) agree that the Barker review does not address the rural dynamic? Although the housing market in rural areas is sensitive to supply, supply is not the only factor, and demand management is also important.

Matthew Green: I could not agree more, and the hon. Gentleman makes a point that I touched on earlier. I do not want to consider the Barker review in too much detail because it was debated last week. It would be nice to have a fuller debate on the subject, but this is obviously a wide-ranging debate on housing, and I want to address some of the other issues.
	The Minister bears on the right point when he suggests that the Conservatives are attempting to excuse nimbysim when they say, We need more houses as long as they are not in our areas. To be taken seriously on housing, one must show that one accepts the need for more housing in high-demand areas, which include parts of London and the south-east as well as areas such as the south-west and the Marches.
	The Conservatives are right to point to the problem of empty homes, because the Government, as they would probably acknowledge, have not done enough work on bringing empty homes back into use. However, the Conservatives did not offer a solution, and neither did the Minister. If he is working on that, it would have been nice to hear about it.

Oona King: If the issue of empty homes is such a problem, why do the hon. Gentleman's new-found bedfellows not support the important approach that the Government are taking on compulsory leasing? In a recent consultation, virtually all the respondents150, bar oneagreed with that policy. Does the hon. Gentleman take a different view?

Matthew Green: In fact, our amendment, which was not selected, supports compulsory leasing. Although the Government have consulted on that, they have not yet come out firmly in favour of itI hope that they will do so. There is a policy vacuum from the Conservatives, as I said earlier. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot tolerate an exchange going on across the Chamber while the hon. Gentleman is addressing the House.

Matthew Green: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The Conservatives are right to highlight the affordability of owner-occupied housing, as well as the supply of social housing, although that does not feature so prominently in their motion. Affordability is a problem not only in London and the south-east, although it is always addressed in those terms, but all over the countryeven in the centre of cities such as Liverpool and Newcastle, where 10 miles down the road there may be a low-demand area. It is a complicated situation that cannot be summed up by saying, Down here in the south-east nobody can afford property, but everywhere else it is cheap and everyone can rush to buy it. The picture is complex and fluid around the country.
	One issue that the Conservatives did not mentionindeed, it was barely mentioned at all, although the Minister touched on it in passingis that of the Government's commitment to the key worker scheme, which provides 1 billion to enable key workers to buy houses. On the face of it, that appears to be an attractive quick-fix scheme, but I challenge the Government on whether it is a sensible use of 1 billion. Giving people money to allow them to purchase houses is an inflationary measure, because it puts money into the housing market and pushes prices up further. It might be necessary for the next year or two until other solutions can be found, but it can only be a stop-gap, because it will serve to further the problem in the long term.

Mark Field: Surely the core issue, particularly in London and the south-east, is that national pay bargaining, which applies in many of the public sectors, means that our workers find that they are massively underpaid, which in turn affects constituents who rely on public services. I appreciate that the measure is inflationary, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that that problem goes much deeper than that? For example, many key workers, especially in London communities, work in the private as well as the public sector.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman has a point, but only just. One stops national pay bargaining at one's peril, because it is frankly unacceptable to suggest that someone doing a job in Shropshire may have a different value from someone doing the same job in, say, Milton Keynes. In many areas, adjustments such as London weighting are made for the cost of living. However, that issue is bigger than the subject of this debate: it is about shifting jobs into the economies of areas other than London and the south-east.

David Wright: Does the hon. Gentleman support the conclusions of the Lyons review, which suggests that major Government Departments should be relocated out of the capital? Does my hon. Friend, as I might call him, think that we should have a few of those in Shropshire?

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to find that I entirely agree with him. Telford or Shrewsbury would be excellent places in which to relocate a Department, because they have beautiful countryside around them and lots of highly skilled, educated workers who are ready to work. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will persuade his colleagues of his case and that the electorate in Telford will look forward to the success that he personally brings to them.

Hywel Williams: May I commend to the hon. Gentleman our experience in Wales in relation to part-ownership schemes, which have been massively over-subscribed and very successful in the short term, but have an inflationary effect on local markets in the long term?

Matthew Green: Such schemes can have all sorts of effects on local housing markets.
	I want to make some positive comments. I have had my bit of fun with the Conservatives, so I will leave them alone for a little while. They are very gentle, tender people these days: one cannot push them too much, or they get upset.
	The problem of empty homes can be addressed by compulsory leasing, but if any voluntary scheme is to have teeth, there must be a fall-back position to guard against a situation in which somebody fails to bring one of their properties into use. I do not believe that the fall-back position should be compulsory purchase, as has been mooted at various times, because the person who owns the property should have the right to retain that ownership. Compulsory leasing is the sensible way forward. I am glad to see Conservative Front Benchers nodding, because a year ago that would not have been the case. Perhaps the change in Front Benchers means that we can achieve cross-party unity.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to introduce compulsory leasing into the Housing Bill before it completes its passage. If he were really committed to such a measure, he would ensure that it reached the statute book as soon as possible. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) will be able to confirm that that is the Government's intention.

Annette Brooke: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Sue Doughty.

Annette Brooke: It is Annette Brooke, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Lady. I think I have made that mistake in the past, and I must humble myself for having made it again.

Annette Brooke: Despite the very welcome announcement about children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, does my hon. Friend agree, given that Shelter has identified that more than 1 million children are living in bad conditions to which they wake up every morning and which affect their health, education and future prospects; that the cross-party fire that we have heard is a diversion from the real issues; and that we should be putting forward positive solutions?

Matthew Green: I agree with my hon. Friend. Moreover, many of those children live in overcrowded conditions. If the Government are prepared to change the definition of overcrowding to a more sensible one, which will inevitably mean that the numbers of people in overcrowded conditions increase overnight, we will not use that as a party political issue. I make that pledge because we want the definition to be changed. I hope that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) will support that on behalf of the Conservatives and that we can achieve a consensus, because will be hard for the Government to make the change if they think that they will come under attack as a result.
	I want to consider the right to buy, a principle that we support, although parts of the country experience difficulties with it. To put it simply, in an area of low demand, there is no difficulty, but problems arise in areas of high demand. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) partly recognised that when he exempted rural areas from the similar right-to-acquire scheme. However, he failed to do that for right to buy. I believe that the local council is the best body to judge whether it has a detrimental effect on the amount of social housing stock in a given area.
	If the Government genuinely believe in local points of view, why do they not trust local councils to decide whether there should be a rebate on the right-to-buy scheme, thereby providing for local variation throughout the country, rather than having a Minister in London determine the areas where the rebate should be varied? That would show a genuine commitment on the part of the Minister for Housing and Planning to local variations to suit local needs. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that we need more local variation to tackle affordability.
	We also need to provide more stepping stones for people to get from renting in the social or private sector to home ownership. To do that, we need to put rungs back on the ladder, because the gap between the rented and owner-occupied sectors is widening rapidly. There are few means whereby people can ascend the ladder, so I hope that Ministers will consider what I have called the right to invest.
	The right to invest is the right of a tenantof a council house or a registered social landlordto purchase a share of the property. The scheme resembles shared equity but starts from the premise that the tenant is renting and then wishes to purchase a share. Tenants cannot purchase the whole property, which therefore remains in the social sector, but the scheme would allow them to translate rent into mortgage, build up equity in the property and eventually get on to the owner-occupier ladder.

Mark Field: The hon. Gentleman outlines an inventive scheme. Clearly, we cannot make policy here on the hoof, but in poverty-stricken areasfor example, in parts of Londonthe lack of capital in the hands of some of the poorest people prevents them from starting their own businesses. That applies especially to those who have few qualifications. I urge the hon. Gentleman to urge the Minister to ensure that we consider innovative schemes to provide an allowance for individuals to have a small asset basethe liquid capital that could enable them to develop businesses.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman has made some sensible comments.

David Wright: May I ask the hon. Gentleman for some details of his suggested policy? How would it work? Does he envisage the local authority having to buy back the equity stake in the property?

Matthew Green: That is exactly what I am suggesting. I am happy to discuss the detail with the hon. Gentleman, but not now. I have discussed the scheme with registered social landlords and they support it. Although they opposed the Conservative right-to-buy proposal for registered social landlord property, they would be happy with a right to invest. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Telford has much experience of the subject and I would be more than happy to have a long discussion with him

David Wright: rose

Matthew Green: But not now, because I am conscious of the time.
	I want to consider the affordability of home ownership. There has been no mention of the price of land, which drives new house prices in particular. Fifteen years ago, developers worked roughly on the thirds principle: property value consisted of one third the cost of the land, one third the cost of building and one third profit. That is to put it in crude terms. Nowadays, the average house builder considers that the cost of the land will be 55 per cent. to 60 per cent. of the final sale price. The profit goes not to the house builder but to landowners, who discoverperhaps through a local planthat what were nice farmers' fields have suddenly become building land. In the south-east, that means an overnight movement from 3,000 an acre to more than 1 million in land value. That is the driver of property prices.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is making a sensible speech. I hope that he will deal with the point that affordability is essentially a people-centred issue. Targets for building a certain number of houses that one considers affordable are nonsense, because the houses could become more or less affordable as a result of the variables that the hon. Gentleman stressed. Affordability is about making affordable houses available to those who need them; it is not about a static housing stock. The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise that.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman makes some good points.
	I want to refer to a proposal in relation to which there has been an exchange of letters between the Minister and mea proposal concerning what Liberal Democrats call the intermediate tier of housing. Clearly, I have not explained it sufficiently well in writing because the officials do not understand what I am writing about, so if hon. Members will bear with me, I hope to elucidate the matter a little more.
	By an intermediate tier of housing, we mean that a house is completely owned by someone who buys it at a price that is capped down. To qualify to buy it, the person must fulfil specific requirements. For example, in a rural area, the criteria might include living and working locally; in London, the person might have to be a key worker. The scheme has started in Shropshire, where it is used by people who live and work locally and would otherwise be priced out of the rural housing market.

Andrew Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Matthew Green: No, I should like to continue. In Shropshire, the price of a typical property would be realised at 90,000 whereas the average price for that same three-bed property would be closer to 200,000. The key point is that the property is cheap not only the first time it is bought but remains cheap. That happens through the use of a section 106 agreement in the planning arrangements to keep the house affordable. An agreement is made about the amount by which its value can grow. It can be sold only to the same categories of people. It is a variation of a schemethe agricultural workers dwelling schemethat has existed for a long time. It is not new science but it needs to be applied much more widely.
	The scheme can be used, as often happens in rural areas, in exception sites, which allow someone to build an affordable home for themselves if they own a plot of land. It is easy to build for 90,000 if one owns the plot of land, because the land price has been taken out of the equation. The scheme could be used to provide extra affordable homes in London and the south-eastfor example, in the Thames gateway. If the Government increased the figure for affordability to 50 per cent. on sites of two or more dwellings, it would not need to be registered local landlord property. It could be 25 per cent. registered social landlord property and 25 per cent. intermediate tier or capped price home ownership property. Under the latter scheme, the builder could build the house and sell it with an incorporated build profit but not a land profit. The other 25 per cent. would be handed over to the registered social landlord sector, as currently happens. The other 50 per cent. of houses on the site would be sold on the open market and could fund the other schemes.
	There would be an issue with existing land banks for house builders, and I have discussed that with the House Builders Federation. If the Government gave a commitment to introduce the scheme in two or three years, it would not be a problem because house builders could build on their existing land banks in that timethe new policy would give them an incentive to do soand they would acquire new land in the knowledge that the value of the properties would mean that they were forced to pay a lower price for the land. The hit would therefore be taken by the person who believed that he had a 3,000-an-acre field, subsequently thought that it was worth 1 million an acre but discovered that it was worth only 500,000 an acre after all. That person is still doing well, but perhaps not as well as he thought.
	The scheme would mean that we could get affordable homes through the planning system without its costing a penny of Government money. It means that the houses stay affordable, using section 106 agreements. I hope that that is a better explanation than the one I provided in writing, and that the Government will take it seriously. Some but not all Conservatives in Shropshire support the scheme. It could gain cross-party support and be a major way forward in dealing with the housing market. The Barker report does not mention it. I am not surprised because it does not go into that sort of detail.
	I hope that, after my bit of fun at the start of my speech, I have tried to be as positive as possible. Housing is one of the biggest problems that face the country. It needs solutions and I hope that some of those that I have suggested will find favour with the Government. If not, they should be prepared to make way for someone who is prepared to introduce some genuine policies.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches applies from now. However, such has been the time taken by Front-Bench speeches that hon. Members should consider, with the interests of their colleagues in mind, whether they can limit their speeches to less than 15 minutes.

Clive Betts: Listening to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) introducing the motion on behalf of the Opposition, I almost felt that life in housing had begun in 1997. It is incredible that she made no mention of anything that preceded that date, or of the housing crisis that this Government inherited.
	To put that crisis in a local context, at the beginning of the 1980s my own city of Sheffield had a major rolling programme of house modernisation in the local authority sector. That came to a standstill because the funding simply dried up. New house building by the local council was also stopped. We had a pioneering enveloping scheme for putting right the structures of private sector homes in some of our poorest communities. It was started in Birmingham, taken up by Sheffield and stopped by the Tory Government. We had a unique housing partnership scheme in conjunction with local builders, the local authority and housing associations that built 1,000 new homes, but the Government brought in specific legislation to stop the scheme. Building on brownfield sites did not happen, because the builders knew that the Government wanted them to build on green fields, and one green field after another was built on.
	The only policy that we had at that time was council house sales. The one housing policy in which the Conservative Government believed was the right to buy. There was a saving to be made there because, although at the beginning the Government said to the local authorities, Sell your council houses, and you can have the money to invest in your own stock, restrictions were soon introduced and the amount of money that could be used for reinvestment went down to 20 per cent. of the proceeds from the sales.
	Sheffield also had an innovative programme to implement new heating schemes in local authority homes. We helped 10,000 homes a year for three years on a leasing arrangement until the Government legislated to stop the scheme and brought it to an end. One measure after another was introduced by the Government to restrict the ability of local authorities to invest in their rented stock and in private sector homes in the poorest communities.
	By the time the Tory Government left office, the total local authority spending on housing in Sheffield was down to 20 million. That was less than a third, in money terms, of what had been available to the local authority at the beginning of the 1980s. That is why we had a housing crisis in 1997, and the hon. Lady made no mention of it whatever. She said that there were certain problems today. Absolutely; we all see rising house prices as a problem. It is a problem for first-time buyers and young couples; we all acknowledge that. There is cross-party agreement on it. Some of us might also share her concerns about an imbalance in growth and prosperity between the north and south of this country. There is an issue there that has to be addressed. The Select Committee, which I chaired a few months ago, made some criticisms of regeneration policies, and pointed out the need to simplify them and to pass more responsibility back to local authorities and local communities.
	However, when the hon. Lady got down to the key issues, all that she had to offer the House was a programme of consultation. She made not one positive suggestion on what we should do about rising house prices or about the north-south divide. She recognised the problems but did not offer a single policy solution. People will draw their own conclusions from that. No doubt there is consultation going on, no doubt there is a review, but that was all that we were offered.
	Let us turn to this Government's record. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will not expect me to be totally uncritical, but let us recognise that the decent homes standard has been introduced by this Government. They are the first Government to recognise that council tenants have a right to a certain standard of housing, which is an important move forward. It is also a brave move, because the Government can be judged against the very clear targets that they have set. I shall not go into too much detail on this, because I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows that a Select Committee report on this issue is about to be published that might say one or two things about the precise level at which the decent homes target has been set. Nevertheless, there is a recognition that the principle is a good one, and the Government should be congratulated on it.
	The Government have achieved a step change in spending levels and investment in social rented housing, particularly in local authority areas, and they should be congratulated on that as well. This involves money through stock transfers and arm's-length management organisations, or ALMOs. I would ask my right hon. Friend please not to give up on the right of tenants to chose their own local authority as the best organisation to manage their homes, and when tenants have made that choice, will he also please try to find a way of allowing money to come into the local authority to bring those homes up to a decent standard as well? The Select Committee has virtually ruled that out, but in other areas of local government, the prudential guidelines on borrowing can be used to allow borrowing against future income streams to deliver improvements in infrastructure. That is not allowed for council housing, and the Minister should consider the possibility of allowing future rental income streams to be used as a basis for borrowing under the prudential guidelines, which would mean that when tenants chose to remain with a local authority, council housing could be brought up to a decent standard.
	When tenants choose ALMOs as a way forward, I hope that the Minister will give a clear undertaking that the money will be forthcoming to fund those schemes. If tenants go to the trouble of choosing an ALMO, as many have in Sheffield through a series of neighbourhood consultations, and if more and more local authorities go down that route, there must be some certainty that money will continue to flow into ALMOs so that those houses will be brought up to the decent homes level. My right hon. Friend will also want to consider the idea of building more socially rented homes through ALMOs. They are a vehicle that could start to deliver new homes in many areas of the country, to add to those that will be available through housing associations.
	We should strongly welcome the Government's approach to housing renewal initiatives in our poorer areas through the pathfinder projects, particularly those involving houses in the private rented sector. In my constituency, the South Yorkshire pathfinder is doing good work and coming up with innovative ideas. The Government should be congratulated on telling the pathfinders to go out and look at the problems and come up with the solutions that are required at local level. They have not been prescriptive from the centre, which is also welcome. However, the cost of some of the proposals are going to be far greater than the Government have budgeted for, and the Minister will need to persuade the Treasuryhe will have a lot of evidence on which to base his casethat more money should be put into the pathfinder projects to make them work.
	The Government should also be congratulated on PPG3. It is a major breakthrough to be able to stand up and say that we are now determined that more and more new homes will be built on brownfield sites. I have had arguments in the past over the unitary development plan in Sheffield when builders in one part of my constituency wanted to build on greenfield sites and the local community did not want it, while in another area, the builders did not want to build on the brownfield sites when that was what the local community wanted.
	It is interesting that builders and landowners are now beginning to consider the possibility that the Government might be serious, and to bring forward more proposals for house building on brownfield sites. One reason that we have not yet seen the increase in house building that we want to see is that it takes time for the industry to adapt to changes of policy. The industry needs to understand that the Government are serious about the brownfield site issue, and that PPG3 is here for good. I am just beginning to see examples in Sheffield of builders putting forward major long-term proposals for more house building on brownfield sites, and the Government should be congratulated on taking that initiative.
	The Minister was right to poke a little fun at the hon. Lady for the nimbyism that she effectively put forward as a policy. Part of what she seemed to be saying was, We don't want more houses next to people in our constituencies who might get a bit upset and not vote for us at the next election. The issue of new house building is a difficult one. We need more new house building in the south-east; I think that it is inevitable. We must recognise that and get it right. The amount of public sector infrastructure investment required will be very great indeed, in terms of sewerage, water and transport, to make the new communities properly sustainable.
	We must also remember that we need to strike a balance between the north and the south. The Deputy Prime Minister's initiative in looking at the new growth area in the north is very interesting. Again, it will need a great deal of backing from the Government, as well as from the local communities. If it is to happen, however, there will need to be a switch of infrastructure expenditure to the north. Current plans for transport infrastructure mostly involve investment going to the south-east. With the exception of the west coast main line, there is very little indeed going to the north to support the Deputy Prime Minister's plans. That is something that we will have to address.
	We shall probably never bring back to the coalfield communities next to Sheffield the amount of industry and jobs needed to sustain them. That does not mean that the local communities cannot remain there, or that we do not have to invest in better housing for them. We must ensure that there are better transport links to Sheffield, Leeds and other cities, so that people can live in their communities and commute easily to their workplaces. That is probably the reality, but we need to consider how the infrastructure will be developed, and where the money will go, to enable us to have that development in the north as well. We must not fall into the trap whereby, because there is lots of growth in one part of the country, we put in lots of infrastructure to support that, but do not invest in other areas where growth probably is not happening, but where such investment will create opportunities for growth in the future. That is very important.
	I have two final points about which I want the Minister to think carefully. It is right that we consider ways to try to speed up the amount of house building going on. I know that there is a temptation to move to more system building, but please let us be cautious. Please let us be absolutely certain that we have got the systems right. In my constituency, we are starting to demolish system-built properties on Scowerdons Farm, Weaklands and Newstead, which were built in the 1970s. They were lovely homes when they were built, with nice space standards, and people liked living in them, but they do not like the water coming in. The cost of putting that problem right after only 30 years is so great that demolition is the only answer. Please let us make it clear that we do not want those problems again. If we are to have system building, we must be absolutely certain about future maintenance costs and the ability of the maintenance industry to carry out repairs at a reasonable cost in the future. Those are real problems, which we must address.
	I welcome the Government's move to examine one of the biggest problems: quality. They are addressing quality issues as well as quantityquality issues were forgotten about for 18 yearsin terms of licensing houses in multiple occupation. That is included in the Housing Bill, which we will discuss next week, and I ask the Minister to consider again the standards and definition of homes that will be included in the compulsory licensing arrangement. Please let us not rule out the possibility of including two-storey homes in that definition, which we will debate further next week.
	The Government inherited a housing crisis, but they have made significant steps forward. There are some matters of concern, as I have said, and some lessons to be learned, but the Government have put housing clearly back on the political agenda, and have begun to reverse 18 years of continuous decline. They should be congratulated on that.

Archie Norman: I am delighted to have a second bite of the cherry on this issue, having had a chance last week to speak in a constructive debate on housing in Westminster Hall. I am particularly delighted because it will also give the Minister a second bite of the cherry. In doing so, I hope that she will apply her razor-sharp intellect to the serious critique that has been advanced by hon. Members on both sides of the House, both of the Barker report and of current Government housing policy. That need not be a partisan or party issue, as many of the points that have been made are not party political or ideological. I hope that she will improve on the contribution of the Minister of State, which was jocular and peppered with facts designed to support the Government's record. In his levity, however, he obscured, to put it politely, any depth of meaning. That contrasted sharply with the serious and substantial contribution from the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), in which he advanced constructive ideas and much with which I could agree.
	First, this debate is about whether there is an overall housing shortagethe central contention of the Barker report, which, incidentally, was hardly mentioned in the Minister of State's opening remarks. That has also been the underpinning idea of the Government's policy, which is that centrally driven housing targets should cascade down through the regions. Secondly, if there is a housing shortage, what is the nature of the shortage, where does it arise and what is its local context? Thirdly, what are the implications for Government policy?
	I shall first address the overall shortage, which is absolutely central to the Barker report. Kate Barker's thesis was that insufficient houses are being built, that the desirable objective of Government policy is to depress the rate of increase in house prices and that, to achieve that, more houses need to be built. Clearly, her contention is that we can build our way out of house price inflation. That is not critically examined in the report, and it is a highly contentious assertion with which few academic economists would agree.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and the hon. Member for Ludlow made the point that building our way out of house price inflation is difficult, not least because only 1 per cent. of the total housing stock is built every year. It is clear that parts of the country with housing surpluses also experience high house price inflation, which suggests that other forces drive the rate of inflation. We all know that those forces are more likely to be interest rates, because housing has become a financial asset, the rate of increase in real wages and the level of unemployment. Those facts determine the rate of increase in house prices, not the number of new houses built nationally.
	A further important point is that the objective of Government policy should not be to depress the price of houses or house price inflation; it should be to reduce the volatility of house prices. The Minister of State referred to the period of negative equity, to which other Members also referred. If we had built more houses at that time, we would simply have created more negative equity and more volatility in house prices, not less. The idea that, with a long time lag, we can somehow build our way out of this problem is complete nonsense and a serious mistake in Government thinking.
	It is important to look at the data on which the Barker projections are basedthe household survey and projections that were completed in 1996. The critique of that survey is, first, that the 2001 census showed that approximately 900,000 fewer people were in the country than had been anticipated in the projections, and that there were many fewer households, which at a stroke undermined the integrity of the future household projections and determination of housing demand; and, secondly, that a study conducted by Europe Economics, which was included in the Campaign to Protect Rural England's submissions to Barker, demonstrated that we have a surplus of houses in Britain, taken in aggregate, not a deficit. That is not to say that there are not scarcities locallyof course there are in certain types of houses. It is important to recognise, however, that, in the country as a whole, we have 3.4 per cent. more houses than households, and that the figure has increased from 2.4 per cent. 10 years ago. Therefore, it is not a national problem, capable of being treated, as the hon. Member for Ludlow said, with national solutions, but a local problem, and it is related particularly to the character of demand and the changing demographics of Britain.
	When discussing this subject, people tend to take the household projections as gospel. If we examine the figures from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on future housing demand, we see that the growth in the number of households in Britain is driven not by a rising population, although there is some net increase because of immigration, but by the changing nature of that demand. The biggest single force in the changing nature of that demand is the growth of single person households. Most of that growth is accounted for not by young people who want to live alone, although they account for some of it, or by single parent families, although they too account for some of itcuriously, household projections suggest that there will be no increase in the number of single parent familiesbut by elderly people living on their own. According to the projections, the driving need in this country over the next 10 years is to adapt our housing stock to the requirements of elderly people.
	Our current house building achievement, however, is a rapid increase in the number of houses being built for families, most of which, like it or not, are executive homes in the south-east for people who can afford to move out of the cities into the suburbs and countryside. In 2003, only 7 per cent. of the new homes built were one-bedroomed homes. By contrast, 63 per cent.two thirdswere three or four-bedroomed homes. That represents a total mismatch between what we are building and the future needs of Britain, which is at the heart of the national housing problem. It illustrates the fact that repeating the dogma that we must construct more houses to build our way out of house price inflation and impose centrally driven housing targets on the regions of Britain is complete folly, and will not address the real problems raised by Members on both sides of the House in this debate and in last week's.

Andrew Selous: I am fascinated by my hon. Friend's arguments. The biggest shortage facing my local housing authority is of larger properties: demand is very much at the family end. Does my hon. Friend find that in his area the demand tends to come from older people wanting one-bedroom properties?

Archie Norman: Of course there is demand for larger homes and family homes in some parts of Britain. In others, there is demand for accommodation for elderly or young people. All demand is local. It needs to be locally defined, and local authorities should be obliged to meet local needs. This is a hard problem to solve nationally, and not one that is susceptible of national, global solutions imposed on regional authorities.
	I want to say something about affordable and social housing. In all fairness, I should redress the balance following the speech by the Minister of State. The Government's record is encouraging in some areas but not in others. Given the partisan nature of the Minister's speech, we should have a few facts on the table.
	First, although investment in poor-quality housing has increased in some areasI generally welcome the pathfinder initiatives, for instancethere has been a 112 per cent. increase in the number of people in temporary accommodation under this Government. That is a serious problem for those people, which cannot necessarily be solved by the building of more houses. I know that some of it is caused by immigration and other factors.
	Secondly, there are twice as many people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation as there were when the Government came to power. Of course we are pleased that families with children are now moved out of such accommodation, but this too is a serious problem, and Members in all parts of the House should acknowledge that it needs to be solved.
	Thirdly, there has been a 46 per cent. decline in building by social landlordsnot an increase, as the Minister implied. All Members are concerned about affordability, and the fact that we are building fewer affordable homes should not be trumpeted as a successalthough the Minister suggested that it shouldbut should be recognised as an embarrassment.
	A number of speakers have observed that this is a local issue. It is, in fact, most acutely present in the urban areas of Britain. If we can be said to have a problem relating to housing and lack of opportunity, it can generally be found in the urban centres of the midlands and north. We should all take that problem extremely seriously. It is in those areas that 51 per cent. of all crime and 72 per cent. of violent crime takes place. That is where we see really poor housing, where most council housing stock resides, and where failing schools are located. We need to recognise the link between a commitment to drive house building and the economic engine of Britain in the south-east and what happens in the regions of the north.
	The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) made a good pointthat investing in infrastructure and housing in the south creates a conflict of interests with the needs of the urban centres of the north and the midlands. In the long sweep of history, part of the difficulty has been migration from the regional centres in those areas. Emigration from the centre of Leeds, Manchester or Newcastle21 per cent. from Newcastle over 30 years, and 16 per cent. from Manchesterinevitably means that those left behind are those who could not afford to move, because they did not have the education and the economic opportunities possessed by others. As a consequence, the continued economic decline of those centres is guaranteed.
	Last week the Under-Secretary asserted that there was no migration from north to south. It is true that it is hard to track the pattern of migration, but it is a fact that in most major urban centres in the midlands and north there has been a net decline in the population. Some migration has been to the suburbs, some to London, and then outwards to the south-east or to the south-west for retirement purposes. Continuing to build more houses in the south-east will make the problem worse, not better. It will create a cycle of decline in the north, and huge congestion problems in the south. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe pointed out, it will also create a competing demand for infrastructure investment in the south-east which, unless met, will cause an enormous crisis and a major drain of public expenditure.
	Migration of populations from one area to another is extremely expensive. It is a great irony that the Labour party should be pursuing a pro-south-east, pro-investmentin the south-east and south-westregional policy, with no apparent awareness of the consequences for the midlands and north. It is not that we do not applaud some of the regeneration initiatives; but they will be as nothing if we continue to drag the population away from those urban regional centres.

Andy King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Archie Norman: My time is limited, but I will give way briefly.

Andy King: Earlier in his speech, the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that demographic changes in family structures were major factorsnot migration, but a breakdown among the older population. What hope is he giving to people in the south-east? He does not seem to be giving them any hope of finding a home that they can afford.

Archie Norman: The hon. Gentleman and I do not disagree on this. We all recognise that houses must be built in the south-east; the question is the extent to which we do so. Do we build to adapt the housing stock to the needs of local people, and of net immigration from abroad and outside London? Do we say What we really want to do is double, or increase further, the rate of house building in the south-eastat least half of which will end up on greenfield landand invest in public infrastructure to support that, because we want to encourage people to come to the south-east to work and live? Or do we, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe suggested, invest in public services and public infrastructure in the north, and encourage Government Departments to move to Sheffield and elsewhere?
	I believe that pursuing that policy will not just be much easier on the public purse, but create a much better quality of life for people across the country. It will enable us to avoid the congestion and environmental problems in the south-east, and begin to create a realistic platform for regeneration in the urban centres of the north.
	When the Minister of State said that all we were trying to do was mount an intellectual construct for nimbyism, he could not have been more wrong. In fact, we are trying to create an intellectual construct for regeneration of our urban centres, for protection of the environment, and for creating a sustainable quality of life for those living in congested areasand real hope for those living in areas of poverty and lack of opportunity.

Oona King: Housing has been my top priority since my election in 1997. I have spoken about it innumerable times, but never have I felt so heartened and truly optimistic as I do today.
	It has always been my job to make real the human misery that is inflicted on my constituents by bad housing. I always think, for instance, of the 23-year-old woman I met who had shared a bedroom with her father throughout her life, of the family who had to place the baby's cot in the baththat was where its bedroom wasof the family of 12 living in two bedrooms, and of the smaller family of just three, consisting of a 50-year-old woman, her 20-year-old daughter and the mother's brother, who had been made homeless for other reasons. He slept on the sofa in the living room for more than five years. It felt as though he was coming to see me every week for about three years, although it was probably less frequent than that; but I never had the heart to turn him away, because I kept wondering what I would do if I had to sleep on the sofa every nightor if I had to share a bedroom with my dad for my whole life, or share my house with 10 other family members living in two bedrooms.
	I know that, historically, Tower Hamlets has always had a problem of poor housing. We had slum housing in the east end, followed by bombing, followed by inappropriate, poor-quality social housing as well as some private housing that has subsequently fallen into poor repair. I do not often indulge in attacking the Opposition, but monumental Tory cheek on this subject makes that, sadly, inevitable. We know about the 19 billion backlog of repairs, and we have just heard that the Conservative party cut funding for social housing down to one third of what it had been when it came into power in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). We know that, overall, the Conservatives halved the money spent on social housing, and we know that there was incredible Tory indifference during those 18 years to the real misery in the east end wrought upon people by poor housing.
	I was surprised to find so little evidence of thought in the speech of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who is usually a very thoughtful Conservative MP. We have heard that the Conservatives are having a policy review and that there is something of a vacuum at the moment, which will be filled at some point, but there is really only one point that the Conservative Opposition need to address, which is the one question that they cannot answer: will they match this Labour Government's increases in funding for new homes? That is all that my constituents want to know, whether they vote Labour, Conservative or Lib Dem. The majority of them70 per cent. in Tower Hamletsrely on social housing, and they want to know, regardless of their political affiliation, where the parties stand on that issue. It is crystal clear at this moment in time that the Conservative party will not match the funding for new housing that the Labour Government have put in place.
	I should also like to know whether the Conservative party will come round to supporting the Barker recommendation to increase the amount of affordable housing. I hope that it will come round to that idea, even if that housing is near its own backyard. If we do not increase the number of affordable housing units, Tower Hamlets residents will be among those who suffer mostalthough they will not be the only ones who suffer. I commend the work of Tower Hamlets residents in becoming engaged in the processin particular Bernie Cameron, who has led the residents compact group in Tower Hamletsand I commend the Tower Hamlets housing staff and housing directorate, as well as the housing associations, which have been at the forefront of innovative thinking on tackling poor housing.
	We in Tower Hamlets feel that we should be rewarded, not penalised. Unfortunately, some of the Government's extremely well meaning attempts to deal with the housing problem in Tower Hamlets and elsewhere have not worked. The right to buy is an obvious example. On the Ocean estate, which had some of the worst housing not only in this country but possibly in Europe, this Government quite rightly said that they would invest 56 million, of which just under half, about 21 million, would go to housing. All that money was to go to improving housing, including making the repairs that had not been made for so long, in order to bring it up to standard. What happened? People on the estate thought, Oh, well, we haven't had anything for 18 yearswe haven't had anything for a very long time. Perhaps we'll all put in a right-to-buy application instead. So instead of any of the 21 million earmarked for housing being able to be spent on housing, more than 23 million had to be earmarked for buying out the right-to-buys. That is the economics of the madhouse.
	I understand that there are different views across the House. The Conservatives think that we are obsessed with not allowing people to own their home, which is absolutely wrong. We are obsessed with not allowing people to live in slum housingthat was what we needed to deal with. I am concerned about the Conservative proposal to extend the right to buy to housing association properties, because for every two properties sold, only one would be built. If we extended that to its logical conclusion over time, the number of housing association properties would be halved. That cannot be the right way to proceed.
	I speak to a lot of people in Tower Hamlets who have bought their own houses, and some of them now have two, three or four children. They tell me that there is no council housing available for their childrenand there is not. If we sell off the housing stock, there will be no housing available for the next generation. That is what a generation in Tower Hamlets faces at the moment.
	That is why I am so delighted at today's announcement, which paves the way for tackling problems with the Tower Hamlets housing stock as a whole, not just in areas such as the Ocean estate but throughout the borough. It removes barriers to housing transfer in areas of negative value. I was delighted while sitting in the Chamber to receive a letter from my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, which said:
	I am acutely aware of long standing issues regarding inadequate housing conditions in areas such as Tower Hamlets, where there is a legacy of poor housing . . . I am delighted to inform you that today, after close co-operation between the Treasury and the ODPM, the Deputy Prime Minister was able to announce a centrally-funded gap funding scheme that will address the issue of negative value transfers directly.
	That is a fantastic example of joined-up government, and I want to highlight the huge ambition of this Government's programme for decent homes.
	As we have heard, for the very first time council tenants will have the right to demand a minimum standard in their homes. When I heard about the Government's programme, my first reaction was delight, but my second reaction was distress. To be honest, I thought that it would not be possible, because no British Government had ever come up with the money required to deal with the east end's historical housing problems. Today, however, I realise that it is possible because today this Government make it so. With the extra funds, a decent home for all by 2010 will be possiblefor people in Tower Hamlets and across the country.
	I pay tribute to Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick) and I have outlined in some detail the problems for areas with negative values, the legacy of slum housing and the need for extra funding. We met the Minister for Housing and Planning, who gave us much time and attention, and he and his officials were amazingly constructive in their approach. We met the Deputy Prime Minister who, again, was extremely concerned about the problems that we raised and determined to resolve the issue. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) for her help. This ministerial team, on behalf of this Labour Government, are making outstanding progress on housing.
	After having lavished so much praise on ODPM Ministers, I know that hon. Members will not expect me to conclude my speech without asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to turn to the subject that I hope they will deal with next: overcrowding. That is still a big problem in Tower Hamlets. As the Under-Secretary knows, the current overcrowding standards date back to 1935, and those in turn rest on legislation dating from the 1880s, which is quite extraordinary. That means that kitchens can be counted as bedrooms, so if my constituent took the cot out of the bath and put it in the kitchen sink instead, that might be all right. In any case, if the cot holds a baby under the age of one, under current standards, that baby does not count.
	Well, 2004 is not 1880, and in 2004, every child counts. I am sorry to be sexist, but I expect particular sympathy for this argument from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is expecting a child in just three months. I know that women and other minorities have to put up with more expectations on their shoulders, but there we are.
	I am very grateful that, at my request, the Department has undertaken research on the extent and impact of overcrowding, and I now ask the Government to go further and to bring the overcrowding standard into the 21st century.

Hywel Williams: It is interesting for me as a Welshman to hear some of the difficulties that we have struggled with in rural Wales for a long time being discussed on a far broader stage. The housing crisis in Wales and in the regions of England is as acute as that in the south-east. I refer hon. Members to early-day motion 1107. Housing in Wales is not immune to market effects from England, as we have seen over the past three or four years, with the Welsh tail being very much wagged by the English dog.
	Markets in Wales are very local, however. The Halifax reports today that UK house price inflation last year was 19 per cent, but the figure in my part of the UK, in Gwynedd, was 57 per cent. I hardly need say that wage levels scarcely rose anything like 57 per cent, so affordability spiralled downwards. The rise in Gwynedd was the highest in the UK, but in West Glamorgan there was a rise of 56 per cent, and in the north-east of England and in Scotland the figure was 40 per cent, which means that ordinary houses are being put way beyond the reach of ordinary families on average earnings. My local authority surveyed houses for sale on the Lleyn peninsula earlier this year, and found that no one on an average income, with the usual multiplier applied by the building society, could buy any of the houses on the market. Those 26,000 people are effectively locked out of the housing market.
	A terraced house in the Roath area of Cardiff that is on the market for 164,950 was going at 65,000 two and a half years ago. Roath is a pleasant area, but it is not exceptional. That house is clearly out of the reach of ordinary people living in the area. Housing is getting out of the reach of local people in Wales in general, and the stock that we have is not of a fit standard. It is estimated that 50,000 children in Wales live in unfit housing.
	In the Ely ward of Cardiffin the constituency, incidentally, of Wales's First Minister, Rhodri Morgan36 per cent. of the households are in unfit housing. It is hardly surprising that there is a great deal of unhappiness in the ward. In the Riverside ward, there is a 7.1 per cent. shortfall in new affordable housing: 428 houses are needed. Houses in Riverside are the most likely in Cardiff to be unsuitable, and households there are the least likely to be able to afford to move. It is hardly any wonder that a popular and diligent councillor, Neil McEvoy, has taken the obvious step of coming over from new Labour to Plaid Cymru.
	Wales has the oldest housing stock in western Europe; a third of its houses are pre-1919, and many of them are in very poor condition. House building rates are so low that today's new houses would have to last for 2,000 years before their turn came for replacement. We are not building the houses that we require. In fact, 4 per cent. too few houses are being built each year to fulfil our unmet needwe are short of 32,000 houses.
	In Wales, 8.5 per cent. of the housing stock is unfit, and the repair bill would be 1 billion. At the other extreme, we have some very good housing. In parts of my constituency, houses are priced at 300,000, 400,000 or even 500,000, but unfortunately they tend to be holiday homes. There are communities in the constituency where more than half the housing is in the holiday homes sector, and local people, usually on low wages, have no hope whatever of partaking in the housing marketessentially, they are locked out. Many are emigrating. The more economically active and energetic young people tend to leave. The average age of first-time buyers in Wales is the highest in the UK, at 36.
	There are many problems, and it has been demonstrated in many of the speeches today that there is no easy answer to the housing crisis. We need many solutions. My party set up a rural taskforce in 2001 to look into possible answers, and I commend our document to hon. Members, and especially those from rural areas, such as the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). It contains many positive suggestions. The taskforce considered the many difficulties that people experience in the simple task of getting a decent roof over their heads.
	The report makes many recommendations, not least new build where that is appropriate, but as housing provision and markets are essentially local, new housing must be very carefully targeted. Unfortunately, in the past few years in Wales we have had policies that led, for example, to a minimum build of 50 houses in very small villages. Public money was not available for smaller developments, which would have been more appropriate.
	The rural taskforce also considered part-ownership schemes. The hon. Member for Ludlow made some interesting points about that. My local authority is considering similar schemes under section 106. A crucial aspect of that is a proper assessment of local need. It is all very well saying that we will provide housing for local people, but we need an objective measure of what they need. That is a matter of equity for anyone who is trying to get in on the local housing market. People must know what they face. Gwynedd is currently constructing an instrument to measure local need on a highly localised basis. I hope that the measure will prove useful to other local authorities. We need proper research in rural areas, based on an appreciation of their particular needs. I am glad that my local authority is taking that on.
	The needs of people in my area, in rural Wales, throughout Wales, and in rural areas of England and in the north-east are similar to those in the south-east of England. I ask the Government, and the Government in Cardiff, to apply themselves with equal vigour to the housing problems of those other areas.

David Wright: It is a pleasure to speak in another Commons debate on housing. I should perhaps declare my interest as a member of the Chartered Institute of Housing. As I have told the House on several occasions, I must be getting it wrong somewhere, because I pay the CIH to be a member and I receive no financial benefit whatever. However, it is a superb organisation that contributes effectively to the housing debate in the United Kingdom.
	At this stage it is difficult to speak of a debate, because much of the ground has already been covered, but I want to focus on three broad themes: affordable housing; promoting choice across the housing sector; and housing market renewal. First, however, I should comment on the Conservative party's lack of a housing policy. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) made a good fist of a very difficult job, but her speech was a completely policy-free zone. She came across like a character in a western, wandering on a desert plain with tumbleweed blowing around.
	Like the Minister, I visited the Conservative party's website yesterday to have a look at the policy document A Home of Our Own. After three attempts during which the search engine crashed, I finally managed to get on to the site and to examine the document. It consists of 61 pages with one policy ideaan idea that the Conservatives have been clinging to for many yearswhich is the right to buy. I shall return to that issue a little later.The Conservatives' consultation process seems to have no end in sight. What is their housing policy? We do not know.
	I returned to the Conservatives' website to have a look at a speech by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). Again, it was a completely policy-free zone, apart from a comment on right to buy for housing association tenants. I suspect that their policy is very similar to ours in large part, but there is of course a sting in the tail. The shadow Chancellor's announcements on Conservative spending plans, made in February of this year, would mean 18 billion of cuts over two years, and a 400 million real-terms cut in housing investment in 200708, compared with 200506. I am more than happy to take an intervention on that issue.

Caroline Spelman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for inviting an intervention. Does he accept that the savings identified by the shadow Chancellorindeed, they were agreed to by the Chancellorin large part recognise the over-burdensome level of bureaucracy that was introduced by this Government, and which the Chancellor himself says could be successfully stripped away after seven years in office?

David Wright: I welcome the hon. Lady's intervention, but our spending proposals already take into account the level of bureaucracy, as well as continuing growth in housing investment and the policy platform of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister over the next five to 10 years. What she needs to do is to produce costed practical proposals for new housing investment, as the Liberal Democrats have done. In that regard, credit is due to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), who made a very good contribution to the debate. So far as the Conservatives' proposals are concerned, there is a policy vacuum and a public spending vacuum. That would mean less money for social housing development, less money for councils to renovate homes, and less money for registered social landlords to invest in local communities such as mine.
	There is nothing new in this. Let us consider the Conservative party's social housing policy in the 1980s, and programmes such as estate action. That programme's guidelines contained a specific requirement to reduce the number of social housing units. I should know, because unfortunately, while working for a local authority I administered a number of those schemes on behalf of the then Conservative Government. Specific guidance was given to seek reductions in social housing numbers. That is no surprise, given the broad policy platform pursued by the Conservatives during the 1980s and 1990s.
	On promoting affordable housing, the bravest decision that this Government took was giving independence to the Bank of England early in our time in office. That decision was crucial in terms of providing stability for owner-occupiers and for people in the broader housing market, and it gave the country confidence in interest rates. The Barker review builds on that, envisaging a partnership between the Treasury and the ODPM in the development of housing policy. Although the Treasury has a key role to play in influencing the economy, giving independence to the Bank of England was an important step in building public confidence.
	We remember the Conservative years. Between 1990 and 1997, nearly 500,000 homes were repossessed, and in 1992 1.2 million households were suffering from negative equity. The Minister has already told us about the continuing growth in owner-occupation under Labour, but we must remember that base rates averaged more than 10 per cent. between 1979 and 1997 under the Conservatives, hitting a peak of 17 per cent. Mortgage rates are now the lowest since the 1950snearly half their average under the Conservativessaving home owners some 3,500 a year. Repossessions have fallen from 75,540 in 1991 to 11,970 in 2002. That is 11,970 repossessions too many, but it remains an incredible improvement on what the previous Conservative Government delivered.
	The Minister has talked in great detail about ongoing housing spending commitments, and I am proud to note that the Government are increasing housing investment. I want to give a few examples from my constituency of how the Government's regeneration agency English Partnerships is working with the local authority and local communities. In the past year or so, EP has produced significant new housing proposals. I should point out that it did not function particularly well in the preceding three or four years, but significant progress has been made in the past 12 months. Projects are being undertaken in areas such as Lawley and Lightmoor. In the latter, a new Bourneville villagethe first one to be built outside Birminghamwill come on stream in the next three to five years.
	In terms of new housing development, a major mixed tenure and mixed development scheme in Lawley will secure an affordable housing level of between 20 and 25 per cent. That is a significant level of affordable housing; indeed, most of the housing in Lightmoor will be affordable housing. That is a very positive step and a major contribution on the part of English Partnerships, which is working in partnership with the local authority on regeneration programmes in Woodside, and with the millennium community scheme in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley).
	Those projects integrate housing development with mixed-use development, including shops, community facilities and schools. That has to be the way forward. They adopt a tenure-blind approach, so that on walking down a street one cannot tell whether a house is for rent or for sale. That is particularly important. Under the Conservatives and programmes such as estate action, we witnessed the virtual ghettoisation of social housing. Groups of housing units built by registered social landlords were clustered together on the worst parts of sites, instead of being integrated into wider housing schemes. That was the wrong approach, and I am glad that we have amended it. We should see more sustainable communities as a result.
	My second theme is the promotion of choice across the housing sector. In my view, during the 1980s and 1990s, far too much emphasis was placed on owner-occupation; indeed, too much emphasis is still placed on it. That is not what happens elsewhere in Europe, where there is a much wider mix of housing and a greater acceptance that the rented sectorbe it the social or private sectorhas a major role to play in housing people.
	The problem with right-to-buy policy that was pursued during the 1980s was that it did not secure the replacement of social housing units. I always supported right to buy. I thought that it was fundamentally right that people should have the opportunity to buy their own home. I am pleased that that is our broad position as a party, but we did not foresee the replacement of that housing stock using the capital receipt. A twist of hand or financial deceit took place in respect of the resources going into new investment from right to buy. Most of the money that became available to local authorities had to be used to pay off debt; only a small percentage of the cash could be reinvested by the local authority. It did not work, so we should re-examine the right-to-buy policy and perhaps come to a new consensus.
	The Conservatives want to extend the right to buy to housing association properties. I believe that that will lead to even greater housing shortages and could cost up to 1 billion in extra public subsidy. Since its inception, right to buy has cost more than 40 billion in public subsidy and I am not sure that we want to continue to put that level of subsidy into such a scheme. I am also concerned about the Conservative party's proposals because smaller registered social landlords will be endeavouring to balance their accounts. They have a small amount of stock available to them and my concern is that the proposal may destabilise some of our better, smaller RSLs. I know that that is a matter of concern within the sector.
	Choice means allowing communities to decide who owns and runs the social housing in their area. As I said in an intervention on the Minister, the Conservatives offered only housing transfernothing else. I was proud when we extended the options available to social housing tenants to include the private finance initiative, arm's-length management organisations and the retention of stock within local authority ownership. It always puzzled me that those options were not on the table previously, particularly given that they draw in significant private sector investment. I can only conclude that the Conservatives believed that transfer was the only feasible model and that they wanted to remove social housing from the council-related sector completely. That was the policytransfer or nothing.
	On social housing, it is important to remember that in 1997, the repairs backlog amounted to 19 billion and there was a cut in investment in new affordable housing. In 1996, more than 2 million homes in the social housing sector were in a sub-standard condition. As we heard from the Minister earlier, we celebrate the fact that we have met our initial targets and are moving towards our decent homes targets for 2010 by improving the condition of 1 million homes. That benefits people across the country with better housing conditions and better standards. It has been achieved by offering more choice for people living in social housingas I said, through PFI, transfer, ALMOs and the retention of stock with local authorities.
	Under the Conservatives, there was a year-on-year decrease in housing investment, and in 1997, council funding for homes was halved to 750 million. Since then, we have trebled council funding for homes to 2.5 billion. Indeed, under the Conservatives, local authority housing debt rose by 500 million between 1992 and 1997, but it has since fallen by 3 billion. That is a positive record on the part of the Labour Government and I am very proud of it.
	My final theme relates to housing market renewal. Housing markets are complex and localised, so we need a process that responds to those aspects. I greatly welcome the Government's initiative on the northern way, which looks into how to sustain and regenerate housing markets across the north of England. We need to go further and build on the experience of the nine housing market renewal pathfinders. I would like to see us developI am looking at the Under-Secretarya midlands way as well, so that we can see sustained investment across the midlands to promote housing market stability. We need to create balanced housing markets. Clearance, along with mixed tenure and mixed use redevelopment, will be particularly critical.
	As the National Housing Federation, the Chartered Institute of Housing and the Local Government Association commented in their recent submission under the comprehensive spending review, it is time to develop a national strategy for housing market restructuring. It should take into accountI partly agree with the hon. Member for Meridenseveral aspects of providing a comprehensive approach to housing market renewal and stability. That is the way forward and I commend those organisations for the work that they have done. We need to integrate best practice from the pathfinders into our wider housing strategy, and mainstream that approach.
	I welcome this opportunity to debate housing issues. I am disappointed to find that the Conservative party is not offering a more comprehensive approach. I am sure that it will try to develop one in the coming months. We will continue to enjoy the debate. On our side of the House, we have a lot to be proud of.

Andrew Selous: In common with other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I want to draw on some of my constituency experience. I am enormously pleased that my district council of South Bedfordshire has plans to build some 7,000 houses over the next few years in order to meet the housing demands and needs of my constituents. Like others, I find that housing is the issue that people come to see me about most often. I am delighted that my council plans to build those houses to meet local need and go some way towards providing additional housing for the wider area.
	My local housing authoritySouth Bedfordshireis Conservative controlled. Only 5 per cent. of its housing stock is of a non-decent standard. It is a good housing authority, which manages its stock well. That may be why, when stock transfer came up a few years ago, tenants voted to stay with the local authority. They felt that it could trust it and did not want to leave it. I hope that the Government will continue the commitment to give local people the right to decide. It is important that the democratic element of stock transfer should remain in place.
	Although I am positive about the local housing plans that are in place for my constituency, I share the widespread concern of my constituents. About 70,000 of them have backed me by signing a petition expressing concern about the Government's house-building plans, as contained in the communities plan, for my area. Frankly, we believe that the plan is inaptly named: it is not sustainable, as the Government call it, for a number of reasons.
	The principal reason is that 40 per cent. of people in Bedfordshire already commute out of the county to find work. There are nowhere near enough local jobs to provide for the 43,000 housesas opposed to the 7,000 that we have sensibly planned forthat the Government propose to place in my constituency. There are also serious concerns, reflected in the Select Committee report, about water availability, and we are highly sceptical that we have sufficient infrastructure for 43,000 houses. We do not believe that the community facilities would be sufficient and we worry about large out-of-town housing estates being placed on the edge of small market towns. That is not the same as proper organic growth. We also believe that a serious lack of community spirit would result, as happened in the Easterhouse development on the edge of Glasgow.
	Above all, we object to having something foisted on us undemocratically from outside our area. My constituents are sensible people, who are quite capable of electing local councillors to reflect their needs and wants for decent and affordable local housing for themselves and their children. We have a good record locally and it is absolutely wrong of the Government to try to take away powers from the local level to the regional level and then again from the regional to the national level. The Minister for Housing and Planning, who has just come back into the Chamber, confirmed that the regional spatial strategy would be the creature, to use his words, of the Secretary of State. It is a top-down, rather than a bottom-up, approach, which does not trust the people.
	I wish to make a few comments about why we have the housing problems now facing the country. I commend wholeheartedly the remarks made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman). He showed with great clarity and conviction that the Government lack a proper national strategy for coping with housing demand. I am in favour of meeting the genuine housing needs of the south-east, but the Government seem set on aiding the continuous flow of people from the north to the south-east. Their plans do not include providing proper transport links or infrastructure development, and there is no prospect of some Government Departments moving to the north, as has been mentioned already in the debate. We need that to balance the economic development in the country as a whole. The economy is concentrated in the south-east, which is being over developed, as anyone who spends any time on the M25 knows.

Peter Pike: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. In Burnley, we are beginning to tackle the housing problem, but the fact that industry is increasingly based in the south, or even in Europe, means that there are fewer jobs in areas such as mine, especially jobs that will attract back people who have been away to university. Does he agree that that is a very serious problem in areas of low housing demand?

Andrew Selous: As always, the hon. Gentleman makes a sensible and powerful point: he wants local jobs to go with proper housing in his area. It will come as no surprise to him that I want exactly the same for my constituents. The Government's plans are wholly unbalanced. We need a proper relationship between housing and jobs. They should be close together, so that we can reduce the amount of unnecessary transport, and thereby pollution. In that way, we could achieve a proper and sustainable environmental solution. I am therefore absolutely at one with the hon. Gentleman on that point.
	The second factor that has contributed to the problems that we face today is the sustained and heavy pressure that the savings and pensions market has come under in the past few years. We must accept that many people now buy houses purely as an investment. One reason for that is that the stock market has fallen in real terms since the Government came to power. The same has happened in Europe and the United States, so the problem is not unique to this country. Although people will rent houses that have been bought for investment, the practice has helped to push house prices up. Housing is therefore less affordable for the people about whom we are concerned this afternoon.
	From the point of view of housing as well as of good community relations, it is important that we introduce a proper and systematic way of removing failed asylum seekers. I want to raise this matter in a sensible and measured way, but the information that I have suggests that there are about 250,000 failed asylum seekers in this country, mainly in London and the south-east. They have not been removed, even though the Government believe that they should be. It is important that we get a proper grip on that problem. That will help secure the good community relations that we all want, and relieve the extreme housing pressures that already exist in the south-east.
	I want to be positive. Labour Members have criticised the Opposition for not having positive ideas, so I shall use the remainder of my speech to put forward some positive solutions of my own.
	I understand that there are about 150,000 empty properties in London and the south-east. I want to make a specific proposal, which I have mentioned before and which I shall keep mentioning. It has to do with the empty flats over shops that can be found in every high street in the country. That phenomenon undermines the vitality of our town centres.
	Those flats would make excellent starter homes for newcomers to an area, or for couples with one child who are just starting out. Such people might not want to remain all their lives in a flat over a shop, but a small financial inducement could be appropriate to facilitate the development of the properties.

Matthew Green: Such as what?

Andrew Selous: I am thinking of some form of grant, or of a tax penalty if such properties were not developed. I favour a carrot-and-stick approach, although there is no time for me to go into the detailsas the hon. Gentleman said in respect of some of his party's policies. However, some such inducement could easily be introduced, and we should explore the possibility.
	The notion of extended financial families is somewhat new to me, although it received an airing in the national press last week. In this country, our concept of the family is nuclear, and that is hugely to our detriment. Several national newspapers last week carried stories about families who live their lives together. When we build new houses, why not consider building ones with two kitchens, for example? In that way, grandparents could live in one part of a house and younger people in another, but everyone could retain some privacy. All sorts of advantages in respect of child care and so on could flow from such an arrangement, which also represents an environmentally sensible solution. I urge a little more flexibility in our response to new building.
	The debate has touched on demographic change, the euphemism for which is household formation. I think that we should be more blunt: this country leads the way in Europe in the incidence of relationship breakdown, in all its manifestations. That is a significant driver of demand, and therefore of the housing crisis that we face. We should look much more seriously at relationship support worka sector into which the Government put only tiny amounts of money. Only 5 million goes to the marriage and relationship support programme. An excellent project for couple mentoring proposed by the organisation Care for the Family was turned down only last week. We must look seriously at this area, as helping people to stay together will reduce housing demand. That is a sensible approach to take.
	We should also extended the disabled facilities grants scheme. To pay for that, I would scrap much of the regional apparatus, and the result would be that many more disabled people would be helped to stay in their own homes.
	Finally, we need to look seriously at how we can help people in large propertiesparticularly council tenantsto move to smaller ones. We could provide some sort of financial inducement in that respect, and thus free up the larger properties for families who need them.

Alan Hurst: I am grateful to be called to speak, Mr. Deputy Speakerespecially so late in the debate, as it may help me revive my skill at prcis, which I fear had become a lost art for me. It seems a long time since my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning spoke, but one cannot help but be carried along by the enthusiasm with which he puts the Government's case and sets out their many achievements. Indeed, by the end of his speech, I thought that he was talking not so much about building low-cost houses as about building the new Jerusalem. That may remain a little bit further down the road, I suppose.
	I have been somewhat perplexed by the argument mounted by some Opposition Members that the problem does not come down merely to a question of supply and demand. I always thought that the Conservative partyat least in its more modern phasewas very much the party of supply and demand and the free market economy. The views of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) may hark back to a more ancient Toryism, but the free market has been the hon. Gentleman's party's dominant philosophy in modern times. All of a sudden, the Opposition appear to believe that the free market or supply and demand do not affect house prices and people's ability to be housed. Of course that is not the sole factor. A large element is the interest rate, but it would take a brave Government, and an even braver Opposition, to say that they would raise interest rates to dampen supply and demand. In any case that would not solve the problem, which will be solved only when there are more properties for people to occupy.
	The problem needs a more delicate approach than has sometimes been brought to it. There is no point in allocating a percentage target for each region of the country uniformly, because the pressure is greater in the south-east. Pressure is also felt in certain rural areas, to which people would like to retire. The only way to solve the problem isdare I say ita degree of state intervention. Some Opposition Members talked about state intervention in the sense of moving people around the country. Can we really say to people, Well, your family has lived here for generations, but the houses are too expensive down here. Why don't you move a couple of hundred miles to where the houses are cheap?? I do not always know what is meant by the phrase sustainable communities, but community means living and working in an area where one is known and, in many cases, where one's family has lived for a long time. It is therefore important to have sizeable schemes to provide houses for rent and to buy that straightforward working people can afford. That was always what was done in the past.
	When we had state intervention in the form of large council house building programmes, we did not have the wild price fluctuations that we have had since the 1970s. The rate of increase was fairly steady from 1920 until about 1970, because we had state provision of housing for those who could not compete in the open market.
	I commend the Government for the steps that they are taking and the money that they are putting in. I ask them not to be afraid of looking back on our recent historywhich did not begin in 1979, but a long time beforeand consider some of the solutions used in those days, such as when Mr. Attlee built 1 million houses in five years. We might reflect on how that was done. We might also consider the scheme put forward by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) that operates in Shropshire and other places. We must be innovative and we must not be afraid to use the power of Government to ensure that poorer people have decent housing, just as it was offered to their parents and grandparents in the years after the second world war.

John Hayes: This has been a good debate, with many useful contributions from both sides of the Chamber. It began with an important speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), which set out our profound concerns about the Government's performance on this issue and signalled the direction in which our party will be heading, to which I shall return later.
	It is interesting to note that this debate is an Opposition debate. The only chance that the House has had to debate housing post-Barker is at the behest of the Opposition, today and in the debate in Westminster Hall obtained by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman). He spoke persuasively then, as he did today. It is sad, but perhaps unsurprising, that the Government seem unwilling to defend their record, and reluctant to debate the future. In 1997I carry a copy of the 1997 Labour manifesto at all times to remind me of the calumnies that it containsthe Labour party took a more optimistic view. They declared with shock that homelessness had more than doubled under the Conservatives. The manifesto said:
	Today more than 40,000 families in England are in expensive temporary accommodation.
	Seven years later, 95,060 statutorily homeless households live in temporary accommodationthe highest figure ever recorded.

Yvette Cooper: indicated dissent.

John Hayes: Well, the Minister will know that Shelter has said that it is a profound disappointment that the Government have failed to deal with those fundamental issues of homelessness. They tell me that more than 100,000 children become homeless in England every year. Some 500,000 households are officially overcrowded, including 300,000 families with children. Only 31,000 new affordable homes were built in 2003, compared with more than 60,000 when we were in government in 199394. More than 3 million households live in poor housing.
	I welcome the Government's success in meeting their target on bed-and- breakfast accommodation. It is good that 4,000 families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation have been moved into more appropriate accommodation, but at least 9,000 families living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are not covered by the target. We heard about some of them in the debate today. We heard about those families who are referred to temporary accommodation through social services. We heard about some of the asylum seeker families with children who are not included in the figures. We heard about many families who are housed in unsuitable, inappropriate accommodation, in hostels and elsewhere. Yes, a small target has been hit and a pledge has been met, but there are bigger targets and many more significant matters. There are many greater indictments of the Government, not merely from the Opposition but from all those who share our concern for some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
	The Government are failing on homelessness. They are also failing on house building. Much has been made of house building in the debate and I acknowledge that there is a housing crisis, but the real crisis is housing mix; it is about the match between the availability of particular types of houses and the need for them. For example, there is a real problem in social housing, where the number of houses built has halved under the Government. There is a real problem in relation to accommodation for single-person households because much of the building in the market sector has been three or four-bedroomed houses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells pointed out. Indeed, according to figures produced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, that trend is likely to continue unabated. The real problem is about the marriage between provision and need, and the Government show no signs of dealing with it.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman has pointed out that the wrong sort of housing is being built, and I very much share that view, but given open market conditions, how does he propose, through the planning system, to build the right sort of houses? Does he want centrally imposed Government targets to tell local councils how many one-bedroomed houses to build?

John Hayes: What is clear is that those predict and provide targets have produced the wrong housing mix. We have had predict and provide for years, yet we have ended up with a situation in which affordability is as bad as it has ever been and where the houses being built do not meet demand from single-parent households, first-time buyers and others. It is clear that the best way to deal with those problems is to trust local communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden said in her opening remarks. It is entirely appropriate that the people closest to local communities, with their interests at heart, should make decisions about how those communities should develop.
	The Minister described that idea as an intellectual construct to defend nimbyism. If nimbyism is believing that local people should have a key role in deciding how their neighbourhood changes and develops; if it is believing that for the most part, incremental development is always preferable to large-scale inappropriate development; if it is believing that houses should be built in character with the landscape and houses around them, most of Britain and most Members of this place would be guilty of nimbyism. If the sort of threats I have described were planned for the constituencies of the Under-Secretary and the Minister, I suspect that they would find it hard not to become nimbies themselves. That is the truth of the matter.
	People's natural concern for their environment and their community is written off by Labour Members as nimbyism, but we stand four-square behind those people in Bedfordshire and elsewhere, so well defended by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Mr. Selous), who stands up for the interests of his constituents at every opportunityas the Minister himself has previously acknowledged. We stand up for people in Ashford in Kent and for people in Northamptonshire and elsewhere who face the onslaught of the concreting over of their green and pleasant land. Those people are not against all development; they simply want appropriate development on a human scale.

Clive Betts: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He is presumably not saying that the Conservative party is against any development at all, so can he explain what appropriate development is and what scale of development the Conservatives would support in the south-east?

John Hayes: That would require a speech of considerably more than 15 minutes, but if the hon. Gentleman had been listening to me carefully he would have heard me say that development is best when it is incremental, when it is in character and in keeping with existing settlement, when it respects the environment and landscape and when it is appropriate to the needs of a mixed, balanced and self-sustaining community. Ultimately, it will be for those in each community to decide what is right for them and their locality, but those are the points of reference that I would offer them, and they would not be very far from the hon. Gentleman's considerations about such things, because he is a studious contributor to housing debates.
	Let me turn to affordability. We must assume, given the absence of any Government statement to the contrary, that Kate Barker's assumptions are the Government's assumptions. Kate Barker says that the real problem of affordability is one of supply. She assumes that a supply-side solution can be devised and implemented to deal with the problem of escalating house prices. Let me say, as I have said before, that house prices are driven up and stay up because of a variety of demand-side factors: low interest rates, the unattractiveness of alternative investment vehicles, the amount of borrowing secured by housing equity and the disproportionate allure of home ownership in British culture.
	Those are the things that have driven up and kept up house prices, and the idea that we can deal with house price inflation or even house price volatility by supply-side changesgiven that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden said, only 1 per cent. of housing is new build and only 10 per cent. of transactions apply to those housesis at best extraordinarily ambitious and, at worst, hopelessly naive. The Minister knows very well that to effect those changes would take an enormous amount of timethe land must be found, local people must back the plans, the houses must be built and then investment must be put into all the associated infrastructure. That is neither sustainable, nor a practical solution to house price inflation and volatility.
	The other side of the Barker reportthe Minister did not mention this in his remarks todayis that, to effect such change, Government would have to ride roughshod over local communities. Power would need to be transferred to the regions, which would impose those building targets on local people, who would have almost no say in where the houses were built and what they looked like. That is a move from predict and provide to dictate and provide, and the Minister was very cautious about not mentioning that because he knows that it is indefensible.
	When we make those charges, the Secretary of Statesupported by the Ministers present today, who are good people, but misguided onesusually crows about the green belt, but as I described in a question to the right hon. Gentleman just a few days ago, the truth is that Government's claims about the green belt do not bear close examination. The Library tells us that the Government are imprecise and evasive, when asked questions about where the green belt has and has not been developed.
	When we study where the green belt has been expanded, we find that that has not happened in the areas where there is maximum pressure for development. Some 94 per cent. of the development of the green belt has occurred in a handful of areas in the north of England. The green belt was designed as a tight belt of land to avoid urban sprawl, yet none of the areas where urban sprawl is a real risk is benefiting from the Government's new interest in the green belt. Mr. Prescott's belt is elastic. It extends ever further into the countryside and ever further away from the areas that it is supposed to protect. So perhaps the Minister and the Secretary of State, before they make any more claims about the green belt, would be better served by looking closely at their record and giving more precise and less evasive answers to the very proper questions posed to them by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
	We have been chided about our policies, and I want to say something about them in a moment. We had hoped to hear something from the Minister about empty homes; the development land tax; the impact of the Government's ideas on local democracy; and affordability targets. We had hoped to hear something about those things in the Minister's opening speech; perhaps we will hear something in the closing speech. All we have heard, as a defence of the Government's housing policy, is an attack on us.
	There is a determination to implement a decent home standard that, although laudable, is by no means enough in terms of tackling overcrowding, warm homes and accessibility for disabled peopleall issues that the Conservatives, together with some of the minor parties, have highlighted in Committee and elsewhere. So the Government should not tell me that we have not taken a stand on such things, for if they study the evidence, they will find that we have done so.
	We have heard a lot about the communities plan, of which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee said:
	Building more homes is not a panacea and the impact of such a housing programme on the environment could be unsustainable . . . The Government's objective to bring down house prices is unlikely to be achieved . . . The Committee is not convinced that the enlarged house-building programme can be accommodated in the South East without seriously affecting the quality of the environment.
	The Conservatives are going to look at a more fluid system which, by extending transferable discounts, will allow people to move more easily from social housing to market housing. We are going to look afresh at shared equity as a means of dealing with affordability, and will put together an empty homes strategy that brings into use some of the 700,000-plus empty homes, on which the Government have consulted endlessly but about which they have done nothing. We are going to look at bringing into use some of the ex-industrial and commercial premises, redesignated for housing purposes, and at effecting a real green belt that protects our towns and cities from urban sprawl.
	The challenge before us is to beautify our landscape, improve our towns and cities, and serve the future in stone and brick or merely propitiate the present with cheap durables, utility and ubiquity. Some will rise magnificently to that challenge, but many will not. Nothing in the words or character of the Government gives me confidence that they will rise above their lamentable record. However, there is still an opportunity for them to do so. Let them come to the Dispatch Box in the few minutes available and give us an honest appraisal of how they intend to improve things in the interests of all the people of this country.

Yvette Cooper: We have had an interesting debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) gave a powerful description of cuts in affordable housing investment in the 1980s and '90s, and raised the important issue of quality and design. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) made a thoughtful response to the Barker review, which we have partly debated before. He made important individual points, but they did not add up to the conclusion that he drew, a subject to which I shall return later. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) spoke about empty homes, on which we are doing a lot of work, and overcrowding, which was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). I pay tribute to the work that she and other Labour Members have done on the issue. We are making amendments on overcrowding to the Housing Bill, and we will shortly consult on the issue in more detail.
	The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) talked about the quality of housing in Wales which, he will know, is a devolved matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) pointed out the importance of mixed tenure communities, and called for a midlands way. The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) complained about the sustainable communities plan, but he knows that there is considerable consultation at both regional and local levels on the proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) made sensible points about supply and demand in the housing market.
	The Opposition are still burying their heads in the sand about the need for new houses, and there were contradictions in the arguments that their spokespeople made, both in the motion and in their speeches. They want to argue that there is not a problem with housing supply, yet they complain that key workers cannot afford to buy a house. They do not want more houses to be built in their constituencies, yet they complain that first-time buyers cannot afford to buy a home in the towns and villages where they grew up. They say that we need more affordable housing, yet they want to cut the social housing budget and stock. They cannot have it both ways.
	I welcome the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) to her post. She said that she cares passionately about these issues, and I believe that she does. However, she has done nothing to improve the internal logic and consistency of the Conservatives' position.

Mark Francois: I thank the Minister for her courtesy in giving way. I have been listening to what she is saying, but the missing word is infrastructure. In my constituency, all the secondary schools are effectively full, it is difficult to register with a general practitioner, and it is practically impossible to find an NHS dentist. The Government cannot keep forcing more houses into the south-east of England, including my own county of Essex, unless they are prepared to provide the infrastructure to go with them. If they are not going to do so, they should stop trying to cover us in concrete.

Yvette Cooper: Of course infrastructure is important in growth areas. That is exactly why we are putting hundreds of millions of pounds of investment into the growth areas. Conservative Members expressed their concerns about the housing market, but all that they could say about their own policy was that they were conducting a review. The predecessor of the hon. Member for Meriden said that he was doing a review and he asked the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) to lead it. I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, but I remember that he was the Minister who described the homeless as the people one stepped over as one came out of the opera. So we will wait with bated breath for that review and the conclusions that it reaches.
	The Conservatives argue that we do not need to increase the housing stock. They do not like the Barker report. I see that those on the Conservative Front Bench have decided to offer their own analysis in place of Kate Barker's, and I am sure that the House will want to weigh in the balance the economic expertise of Kate Barker, a member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, and the economic expertise of those on the Conservative Front Bench today. They are, after all, the team whose leader argued strongly against giving the Bank of England independence and said that it should not have increased interest rates in 199798. Given that those interest rates were so important in preventing the boom-bust cycle and in preventing a crash in the housing market like the one that we saw in the early '90s, I think economic history has demonstrated that we are lucky to be dependent on the judgment of the Monetary Policy Committee in this area, rather than on that of the Conservative Front-Bench team.
	The Conservatives are kidding themselves if they think they can ignore the problems of house price inflation and pretend that there is no case for more houses to be built. Demand is increasing and supply has not kept up. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) argues that we should not concentrate on addressing housing supply because it takes a long time to build houses. I must point out to him that if he had started to take a long-term view 10 or 20 years ago, and if his party had done the same, we might have a rather healthier housing market today.
	The Conservatives keep pretending that we do not need more houses. Tell that to the nurse who cannot afford to buy a flat within an hour of the London hospital in which she works. They say they care about key workers and they want to support first-time buyers, yet the logic of their analysis is to price more and more of them out of the housing market altogether, and that is not fair.
	The hon. Member for Meriden claimed that we were patio-ing over the countryside. I should point out to the Opposition that the green belt has increased since 1997 by 25,000 hectares, with a further 12,000-hectare increase under consultation. What happened to the green belt between 1987 and 1997? It was cut. The Government have increased brownfield development above 60 per cent., which the Tories continually failed to do.

John Hayes: The Minister says the Government have increased the green belt, as I predicted she would, but 22,630 hectatres94 per cent. of the totalis in Blyth Valley, Tynedale, Bolsover and Blackburn, which are not the areas that are under most pressure to develop. It is unsurprising that the House of Commons Library describes her policy and her answers on the subject as evasive. Are they evasive or is the Library wrong?

Yvette Cooper: We have made clear throughout our commitment to sustaining the green belt in every region. That is exactly what we are doing, unlike the policies of the Conservatives when they were in government, when they cut the green belt over a long period.
	It is important that we address the problems faced in parts of the north, where some areas face low demand and where we have set out a 500 million programme to tackle low demand, as well as regional growth strategies such as the northern way, whereas the Conservatives ignored the problems for so long. The hon. Member for Meriden said that she cared about regeneration, and again, I believe her, but she urged us not to cut regeneration funding. Has she talked to the shadow Chancellor recently? Does she know that he wants to cut 5 per cent. in real terms from every budget except health and education?

Caroline Spelman: indicated dissent.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Lady denies it, but the shadow Chancellor said on the record that he wants to freeze spending and make a 5 per cent. real terms cut in regeneration programmes, which would mean cuts to the new deal, Sure Start and neighbourhood renewal programmes. She might want to focus her passion within her own party; this party is committed to keeping up investment in regeneration programmes because they tackle unjust inequalities across the country. We need more, better quality affordable housing.

Sarah Teather: Is the Minister aware that house prices in my area rose by 11 per cent. last year, which is the greatest increase in any London borough, and that 18,000 people are on the Brent waiting list to be transferred to council housing, 4,238 of whom are in temporary accommodation? Is she also aware that the incidence of empty homes is much higher in Brent than elsewhere in London5.4 per cent. of properties in Brent are empty, compared with the London average of 3.2 per cent.? Does she think that more could be done to address that problem?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Lady makes an important point, and I agree that more could be done about empty homes. We are working closely with the Empty Homes Agency because we want to act on the issue, which is why we held a consultation. The hon. Lady referred to the difficulties that some of her constituents face, and she knows that both affordable housing and overall housing supply in London and the south-east are important issues. We must increase the supply of affordable housing and tackle the issue of quality, which is why we are addressing the 19 billion backlog in repairs and maintenance. In 1997, we inherited a situation in which 2.1 million families were living in cold, damp or draughty accommodation, which included homes with leaky windows and inadequate heating that did not meet modern standards and expectations.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Government amendment states that the Government have taken the trouble
	to support the creation of 230,000 affordable homes since 1997.
	Given that a parliamentary answer on 27 April stated that 14,601 affordable homes are currently being built, and that seven times 14,601 is way short of the 230,000 total, will she undertake to put in the Library which regions those 230,000 houses were built in?

Yvette Cooper: I am happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with more information about affordable housing, which is an issue that we must address across the country. The Conservatives also need to reflect carefully on their claims about building social housing. In the early 1990s, the public sector could build affordable homes at those levels because the housing market had collapsed, the property and construction markets were in crisis, the Tories had pushed the country into a devastating recession and interest rates had hit 15 per cent. Some 1.5 million families suffered negative equity because of the stupid economic policies pursued by the Conservative Government at that time. Do Conservative Members really want to hold up the early '90s as a great example of housing policy? We know that they want to turn the clock back, but it would be foolish to turn it back to a policy of boom and bust.
	Look at the Tories' other polices for tackling affordable housing. They want to force housing associations to adopt the right to buy, which would cut housing stock in the long term. Their most ludicrous policy is to cut investment in housing. The shadow Chancellor has made it abundantly clear that he wants 18 billion of cuts in two years, which means at least 400 million of cuts in housing. I must point out to the Tories that houses cost money, and do not grow on trees or fall from the sky, street by street. Affordable houses cost money, and I do not know how they can increase affordable housing by cutting the housing budget.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 317.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):
	The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 199.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House commends the Government's record on housing, and the progress it has made in delivering sustainable communities, as set out in Making it Happen: The Northern Way and elsewhere; notes that one million more people own their homes now than in 1997, whilst mortgage rates are at their lowest since the 1950s; notes that since 1997 there are one million fewer social homes below the decency standard and welcomes the Government's approval of 58 new schemes that could make decent another 170,000 social homes; applauds the fact that the number of families with children in bed and breakfast accommodation for longer than six weeks has reduced by at least 99.3 per cent. since March 2002; supports the Government's plans in the Thames Gateway and newer growth areas to deliver new sustainable communities and provide an extra 200,000 homes; further welcomes the action the Government has taken to support the creation of 230,000 affordable homes since 1997, to help over 10,000 key workers into home ownership in areas of high demand, and to reduce rough sleeping to the lowest level since records began; further supports the Government's creation of a 500 million Market Renewal Fund to tackle the worst cases of low housing demand and abandonment; applauds the creation of regional housing boards to ensure investment is focused on regional priorities; and welcomes the fact that the Government has added 25,000 hectares to the greenbelt with a further 12,000 hectares in prospect, and is exceeding its brownfield target, having built 64 per cent. of new homes on previously developed land in 2003.

Christmas Day (Trading) Bill [Money]

Queen's recommendation having been signified

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment on the Order Paper.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided.
	As drafted, the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) may have some small expenditure implications for the Treasury purse. A money resolution is required because inspectors will enforce the prohibition on the opening of large shops on Christmas day. The costs are expected to be negligible because only a handful of shops have opened in the past. The overwhelming majority of large shops do not currently open and do not plan to open in the future. The new regulation will simply maintain the status quo.
	Enforcement will be informed by local publicity or complaints by members of the public. I do not envisage trading standards officers, whose responsibility it will be to enforce the regulation

John Bercow: I am immediately intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's use of the word negligible. Does he interpret negligible, in this context, to be a sum smaller or larger than the 50,000 limit proposed in the admirable amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)?

Gerry Sutcliffe: The amendment was not admirable, because it was not chosen. The figure will be negligible in the context of the enforcement that may be required. The new regulation will simply maintain the status quo.

John Redwood: The Minister should give us a little more information than that. Will he estimate the cost, and say by how much it will exceed the rather generous figure of 50,000 mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I do not want to waste the time of the House; we will have the opportunity to look at such matters in detail when the Bill goes into Committee, which I understand will be next week. Clearly, there are issues that need to be discussed but, as I have already explained, we see negligible as referring to the impact that there will be on the Treasury purse.

Greg Knight: The Minister has said that the impact will be negligible on the Treasury purse, but is not the problem that the money resolution, if passed, will in effect sanction council tax increases across the United Kingdom?

Gerry Sutcliffe: No, it is not. That is a spurious attempt to railroad the discussion and move us away from the purpose of the excellent debate that we had on Second Reading, when hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), attended the House on a Friday morning. I respect his abilities on Friday mornings, as I mentioned during that debate. Members on both sides supported the intentions of the private Member's Bill, and we are today just discussing the money resolution, which is the norm for such Bills. As I have said, there will be time in Committee to go through in more detail some of the points that hon. Members want to raise.
	I do not envisage that trading standards officers will have to visit large shops to check compliance on Christmas day. The legislation is likely to cause a minimal addition to existing enforcement responsibilities, so the implications for the public purse are expected to be negligible. I commend the motion to the House.

Andrew Mitchell: First, I convey the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) who would normally deal with this business but is occupied on parliamentary business elsewhere in the House. I was not present for the Second Reading debate on a FridayI was in my constituencybut I have read the report of the debate, and I see that it was in general a good-natured occasion, apart from the unexpected and savage attacks on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who was present in his capacity as the guardian of the taxpayer and a fierce fighter for deregulation.
	I note that at the time of an enormously skilful and successful Government Whips Office in 1994, a very difficult and contentious measure was enacted, enabling the House to resolve a matter that had presented many difficulties in previous years.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his complimentary remarks about the Whips Office in 1994, as I was Deputy Chief Whip at the time. If my memory serves me correctly, he, too, was a member of the very same office.

Andrew Mitchell: These matters were too long ago for

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is all very interesting, but I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman returned to the matter before the House.

Andrew Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that on that occasion a number of hon. Members, of whom I was one, supported an amendment that we believed would exclude Christmas day and Easter day from the provisions on Sunday shopping. Unfortunately, the fact that Christmas day could fall on a day other than Sunday eluded a number of hon. Members, including me, hence the need for this Bill, which I support.
	I urge my colleagues to support the money resolution, as the Bill should stand or fall on its merits and should not be stillborn because of the failure to pass this resolution.

John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend think it right that the Government should produce a money resolution without giving us any hint about how much money might be involved?

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend pre-empts precisely the point that I was about to make.
	Does the Minister agree that the cost of not passing the money resolution might be far higher? Although a severe problem is yet to emerge, there is a danger of a domino effect, whereby when one or two shops start opening others might follow. The market pressures could become so intense that retailers had to open, and before long Christmas day would be the same as any other trading day. If we then tried to introduce legislation, the costs of enforcement and publicity would indeed be far greater.
	Does the Minister accept the comments made by my right hon. Friends about the lack of detail about the costs involved? It would be helpful if he said a word or two about the extent of the costs. What would they be for, and how much does he estimate that they might be? We have a duty of care to the taxpayersomething that the Government, sadly, take all too lightly. I hope that he can supply those details.
	Although the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was not selected, specific amounts have in the past been added to money resolutions. The last such occasion was about 50 years ago when a money resolution on the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Bill was debated, limiting payments to 1.5 million in the first year and 250,000 in subsequent years. One of your predecessors, Colonel Sir Charles McAndrew MP, was in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My predecessor as MP for Sutton Coldfield, Sir John Mellor, made a supportive speech, and my predecessor as MP for Gedling, Sir Kenneth Pickthorn, made a speech in which he complained that he had been sitting in the House for some five hours and had not been fed or watered in that time. He received considerable sympathy from Members and then made an impassioned speech. The House did not divide on that occasion, but the Minister present explained the amount of money involved, what it was being spent on and how the figures had been reached.
	I shall support the money resolution, and I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider doing likewise for the reason that I gave: the Bill should stand or fall on its own merits; it should not fall because the money resolution does not go through. However, I commend the practice whereby the Minister dealing with the motion explained the sums involved in a money resolution. I hope that the Minister present will give us more details on that later.

Eric Forth: We have a problemthe blank cheque syndrome. Every time a money resolution is presented to us in this way, Ministers come over all coy and cannotor will notgive us the amount involved. That is absurd. Wethe tribunes of the people and the defenders of the taxpayerare given no information whatsoever by Ministers as to the sums that they propose to extract from the taxpayer to support a Bill. That problem remains and, sad to say, the Minister present has followed the pattern with which we are all too familiar. [Interruption.] He is looking particularly pleased with himself, although I cannot imagine why. When a horrified electorate discover the outrage being perpetrated on them today, they will, I hope, wipe the smile off his face.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The right hon. Gentleman is a distinguished Member of the House and a former Minister. Is this not an enabling motion of the sort that accompanies most Bills, and which will permit the necessary spending once the Bill has completed its legislative passage? Did he not move money resolutions when he was a Minister?

Eric Forth: I cannot remember, but I hope that I would not touch a motion such as this with a bargepole, under any circumstances.
	The Minister has generously helped me by reminding me of another problem. The Bill has not even reached consideration in Committee or on Report, when it may well be substantially altered in who knows what manner, yet he wants us to vote unknown sums for a Bill that has yet to take its final form. That is another absurdity and a generic problem that we face with these motions, although I realise that the Minister is not responsible, as he does not control the procedure of the House.
	I had hoped to move an amendment to the money resolution that would make the Bill's originatora trade unionpick up the cost of implementing it. It is surely absolutely proper that the trade union in question, which is trying for the second or third time to get the Bill through the parliamentary process, should pay the cost of implementing it, rather than the taxpayer.

Kevan Jones: The right hon. Gentleman's line of argument is very interesting, but I should point out that the Bill is also supported by the Catholic Church and the Church of England. Is he suggesting that they, too, should be levied for the cost of implementing it?

Eric Forth: Perhaps. The problem is that often anonymous or unknown interest groups introduce Bills and put undue pressure on innocent Members of Parliament, who are expected to bring them before the House. The groups then slink away into the darkness, leaving the taxpayer holding the no doubt substantial bill. To my mind, that is a difficulty.

Simon Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman is advancing a very interesting proposition. Does he want to surcharge the new Leader of the loyal Opposition in respect of what happened with the poll tax? It was the poor old taxpayer who had to pick up the cost of that.

Eric Forth: If I recall correctly, the excellent poll taxI still believe that it was a wonderful idea, but it went a little wrong in implementationwas not introduced through a private Member's Bill. It might have done better if it had been. It might have received excellent scrutiny and emerged in a better form. I am talking in the context of a money resolution for a private Member's Bill and I am focusing like a laser on that aspect of our procedure.
	My first thought was that we should try to find a way to ensure that those who inflict regulatory measures on us pay the cost of them. I was advised that that might be complicated, and then our excellent Clerks gave me further advice. My modest amendment was tabled partly as a probing amendment, but I also thought that it might provide the cost of one additional official in the Department to oversee the process. My right hon. and hon. Friends have already extracted from the Minister the fact that, if this regulatory measure is implemented, it will impose additional costs on local authorities. If the Government are not going to divvy up, the taxpayer will inevitably have to pay up. We are left with a most unsatisfactory degree of uncertainty about the measure.
	I am sure that we all look forward to seeing the Bill in Committee, but more important to me is the fact that we will have ample opportunity on Report to explore in greater detail the substantial areas for amendment, which I hinted at on Second Reading. I believe that there are many possible ways of strengthening and improving the Bill.

Greg Knight: Has my right hon. Friend had any private briefing from the Minister on this matter? I am still at a loss to understand how the Minister can say that the cost of the money resolution will be negligible, because we are dealing with a Bill that is not yet an Act of Parliament. If the Bill, in its final form, imposes a number of onerous duties on local authorities, they might seek to employ an army of staff to implement them. How can the Minister tell the House that the costs are negligible?

Eric Forth: I cannot tell my right hon. Friend when I last had a private briefing from a Minister. It must be some timeperhaps not since I was a Minister. I certainly cannot think of any occasion since. My right hon. Friend reinforces an important point. The Minister claimed that the costs were negligible, which suggests that he has some idea of the scale of the costs, yet he will not tell the House with the honesty and transparency that the Government frequently claim for themselveswe have heard all the guff about freedom of information and open governmentwhat the scale will be. In fact, when it comes to it, we get no transparency or honesty from Ministers at all. How does the Minister know that the costs will be negligible, when he refuses to tell us how negligible? He will not even give a hint as to the likely figure, even though, as my right hon. Friend reminded us, the Bill may be subject to amendment in Committee or on Report.
	The costs could be reduced and, if they were, the taxpayer would be grateful. However, if hon. Members want to strengthen or improve the Bill or bring in additional protection for workers in smaller shops, the costs could increase. There are any number of ways of exploring the Bill and its possibilities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) pointed out, it is some time since we looked into this issue and the Bill provides us with an opportunity to revisit itwrit large rather than in a narrow way. The House should embrace the opportunity to debate the likely effects of the measure and the degree of choice likely to be available to shop owners and proprietors, shoppers and consumers and those who work in shops, large or small. There are many issues that deserve exploration, all of which add some doubt as to the likely scope of the Bill and the consequent burden to the taxpayer of the associated money resolution. All in all, we face a very unsatisfactory set of circumstances.
	Frankly, I am disappointed in my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield. He is prepared to offer our party's supportthe party that poses as the party of the taxpayer and of deregulationand sign up to a money resolution at this stage, without even knowing what the Bill in its final form will say. I hope that he will go away and do his homework a little better next time, because that really will not do. When he next talks about deregulation, I shall be sitting behind him, prodding him and reminding him of where we are going.
	This has been another sad little episode in the saga of money resolutions. The Minister brought no glory on himself or on the Government. I look forward to giving the Bill a through going-over in the parliamentary stages that lie ahead, in the hope that we might tease out some more information.

Kevan Jones: On Second Reading, the Bill received widespread support from all parties in the House. It has widespread support in the country as well. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) tried to suggest that only the trade unions support it, but Church groups andas my postbag showsordinary citizens also think that the Bill is proper in its aims.
	The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) said that when the Sunday Trading Act 1994 went through the House many Members thought that Christmas day was exempt. Many Members who were present on Second Reading also referred to that, and this Bill is designed to close that loophole. I found some of the arguments presented by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to be amusing. He suggested that he wanted to improve the Bill; if so, I look forward to his contribution to the debate, but my clear impression is that he wants to wreck the Bill. His speech this afternoon contained a veiled threat that he would do just that when it comes back on Report. That would be sad.

Chris Bryant: He has never been accused of subtlety before.

Kevan Jones: People do not accuse me of that either, but the fact is that the Bill enjoys widespread support. I am very grateful for the support expressed by the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman this afternoon.
	The Bill will not lead to a substantial increase in costs. The idea that local authorities will have to employ armies of new inspectors to look for people selling products forbidden under the Bill on Christmas day is ludicrous. The officers needed to police the Sunday Trading Act 1994 already exist. There is no need to visit a store, as evidence can be adduced from till rolls and other sources to show whether it was open on Christmas day. Therefore, the arguments that have been advanced do not hold water.
	The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst mentioned regulation. We had a long discussion about his view of society, but I believe that a certain amount of regulation is welcome. On Second Reading, the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman made it clear that many of the great regulatory Bills in the early part of the previous century were brought in by a one-nation, caring Conservative Government. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman does not belong to that sector of the Conservative party.
	Many of the issues raised this afternoon can be addressed in Committee. I welcome positive suggestions to improve the Bill, but I do not want a repeat of what happened on Second Reading, or even this afternoon. No attempt to stop or wreck the Bill can be considered productive, given the widespread support that the measure enjoys. The use of parliamentary tactics to thwart the progress of a Bill that enjoys the support of the majority of hon. Members reflects no credit on the people involved, or on the House.

John Redwood: When Ministers support a motion such as this, they should be able to tell the House the Government's estimate of the cost involved. What is the point of a debate on a money resolution if the amount cannot be debated? The Minister seemed to think that Opposition Members were asking some sort of trick question when they wanted to know how much money was involved, but it is the central question in the dispute.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The Bill's enforcement and publicity costs could be met from existing trading standards budgets, but amendments to it might make further spending necessary. The money resolution covers that eventuality.

John Redwood: If that is to be done properly, the Government must give the House some guidance on what costs might be involved. The fact that they think that a money resolution may be necessary implies that the Bill will incur costs over and above the moneys already voted by the House under the relevant budget heads.
	The fact that the Minister has said that he thinks that the sums involved will be negligible to the Treasury implies that he has in mind the rough magnitude of the costs. The Minister tries to defend his position by saying that the Bill might be amended, but I want to know the price tag of the Bill, as drafted, for the consolidated fund and for local authorities, which are partly financed by the council tax. Those are important issues because, as the Minister knows, we are about to have some local government elections, in which the extremely high levels of council taxesespecially from Labour and Lib Dem councilswill be the leading issue. Now we have a Minister who seems to want to place more burdens on local authorities, without telling us how much, how the costs will be funded and who will pay.
	The Minister said that the amount would be negligible to the Treasury. I would have been more relaxed if he had just said that it would be negligible, because that would mean a few pounds. However, negligible to the Treasury could be a very large sum. We have a Treasury that thinks that it needs to take more than 400 billion a year from British taxpayers. Well, 1 per cent. of that is 4 billion, which clearly is not negligible, even to the Treasury, and 0.1 per cent. is 400 million, which is probably not negligible to the Treasury. However, 0.01 per cent. could be said to be negligible to the Treasury, but it is 40 milliona huge sum. Is that the sort of sum that the Minister has in mind?
	I come to my main worry about this short but interesting debate. I understand the motivation of those who strongly support the Bill. They do not want shop employees to be put under any pressure to work on Christmas day against their will. Those supporters think that that is a bigger problem than the possibility that some people might wish to work on Christmas day for higher sums, which is what concerns my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I understand that shop workers do not want to be put under any pressure to work on Christmas day, but will pressure be put on enforcerspeople who police trading standards and shop practicesto work on that day instead? Why do shop workers have to be protected but not the enforcers?
	We need to know the Minister's thinking on the sums involved in the money resolution in more detail. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) says that he does not think that enforcers would need to work on Christmas day. He thinks that they would be able to collect evidence after the event in the normal course of their duty. However, I suspect that courts of law might want to have direct evidence from an enforcer who had seen for himself or herself that a shop was trading on Christmas day. That means that large sums would have to be offered to existing trading standards enforcers to induce them to go to work on Christmas dayand an element of compulsion would probably be necessaryor a separate army of enforcers would have to be hired specifically for that day. Perhaps redundant Santa Clauses could be hired for the purpose, if they did not have anything better to do on Christmas day. If they were very lonely, they might like to earn the money that the Minister has in mind under the resolution by enforcing the ban on Christmas day trading.
	The Minister owes us an explanation before the debate is over. Why did he say that the sum would be negligible to the Treasury? How big a sum might that be, because it could be quite large? After all, we know how careful Ministers are with the language that they are allowed to use with official advice in such circumstances. We also need to know whose freedoms and liberties not to work on Christmas day might be damaged in return for greater scope for shop workers to avoid doing so.

Greg Knight: I am with my right hon. Friend all the way on the points that he has made. Does he agree that the Minister has a duty to give the House some guidance on the level of cost that could be involved? For example, what would it cost if every trading standards department across the UK had only two people on duty on Christmas day? We should be given some idea of the figures. So far, the Minister has failed to give the House the information that it should properly be given.

John Redwood: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, as I was about to make exactly that point. There are shopping centres in all our towns and cities and in many of the larger villages, so if the measure is to be enforced properly it will require invigilators to be available at the end of a phone line when evidence comes in, or at shopping centres in person.
	As proponents of the Bill have said, if things get out of hand and shops start to open on Christmas day it will be difficult to control the process. One assumes that a tough enforcement operation would be mounted in the first year of implementation of the proposal, to fulfil the aims of the Bill, so two people per trading standards area might be insufficient. In my district, which has a unitary council, we might get away with only two or three invigilators, as we do not have many shopping centres, but in a county, which is the more normal area covered by a trading standards department, two would be an underestimate, given the large number of shopping centres in such an area.
	Before the debate closes, the Minister owes it to the House to explain why he said negligible to the Treasury and what range of forecast that implies, on the evidence of the Bill as draftedof course, we do not expect him to be a clairvoyant and to know what amendments might be accepted. He should also let us know how many trading standards officers, or their equivalent, will be needed. Will they all be needed on Christmas day or will the courts accept subsequent evidence? I think that is doubtful. If the Minister can answer those points, we might be able to do a decent job of scrutinising the proposal.

Owen Paterson: My contribution will be brief.
	We held an interesting debate on Second Reading, which the Minister attended, and it seems strange that he has given blanket approval of a money order when the measure is not yet in its final form. The Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), rightly said that it had wide support in the country. However, it could be improved and I wrote to him on 7 April, following our debate, to describe an anomaly in my constituency, where there is a splendid organisation for which the measure might have cost implications.
	Mr. Faulks used his demob money to start Stan's Shop in St. Martin's, which was then a very small enterprise. It has been built up into a substantial and successful shop, which, by tradition, opens for two hours on Christmas day. The practice began because children opened their stockings and found toys without batteries, so as a kind gesture to local people Mr Faulks opened his shop for two hours. However, the business has grownit is now known as Stan's Superstoreand the problem, which is directly related to the motion, is that it is above the 23,000 ft threshold cited in the Bill as the qualification for a large store.
	As I wrote to the hon. Member for North Durham on 7 April, I wondered whether he might take the opportunity afforded by this debate to let me know whether he intends to reply. We might be minded to table amendments either in Committee or on Report so that my constituents could continue to benefit from the service provided by Stan's Shop, which isas I saida local tradition and of great benefit to local people.
	As someone who would like to see the benighted British taxpayer pay considerably less tax, especially in a county such as Shropshire, where we suffer from a ghastly Liberal-Labour regime that imposes hideous council tax increases, I am nervous about the weasel words used by the Minister. I think they mean that he might put the costs of the Bill on to council tax payers. The measure may not affect the Treasury, but it could hit council tax payers, so I should be loth to table amendments that would place further costs on my constituents, who already struggle to pay the tax that is currently being imposed on them.
	Perhaps the hon. Member for North Durham could intervene to let me know whether he intends take up the ideas about which I wrote in my letter of 7 April. I should also very much like the Minister to explain whether negligible means a soft touch for the Treasury because the costs of administering the Bill are to be dumped on the poor old council tax payer.

Gerry Sutcliffe: With the leave of the House, I wish to respond quickly to some of the points that have been made. Let us not lose sight of what the Bill is about or of the fact that it enjoys the support of many hon. Members of all parties.
	The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) put his finger firmly on the nub of the issue when he referred to the domino effect. In the consultation process, major retailers clearly said that, if one of their competitors opened on Christmas day, the rest would do so, and that they would rather have a rule in place to stop that happening.
	The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) supports competition, and those involved in enforcement would consider what happens on Christmas day. That is how the enforcement would take place.
	This is an enabling money resolution, as always. It is intended to ensure that, if there are extra costs, the money can be forthcoming from the Treasury. As I have said, there may be no extra costs because trading standards officers are already involved in enforcement and the publicity surrounding the changes would suffice.

Greg Knight: Will the Minister give way?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I will not give way.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) has said

Greg Knight: Will the Minister give way?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I have already said that I will not give way.
	As my hon. Friend has already said, this important Bill enjoys a great deal of support throughout our communities and it is about keeping Christmas day special. I hope that he is wrong; I hope that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is not about to try to wreck the Bill. People want this important Bill to be passed, and I hope that the House will support this enabling money resolution.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided.

Genetically Modified Crops

[Relevant documents: the second report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 200304, on GM FoodsEvaluating the Farm Scale Trials, HC90and the fifth report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 200304, on GM FoodsEvaluating the Farm Scale Trials: the Government Response, HC564.]
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Derek Twigg.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that there is a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches in this debate.

Elliot Morley: Although I appreciate that the previous debate was very important and I do not dispute the right of hon. Members to raise such issues, I was a bit disappointed that it took so much time away from an opportunity for the House to discuss genetically modified cropsanother very important issue. I will try to keep my comments brief, so that as many hon. Members as possible get the opportunity to participate in the debate.

Simon Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am concerned by the fact that the Minister has suggested that there is limited time to debate this matter. Can you confirm that we still have the full three hours?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, we have. In fact, the debate will conclude not later than 8.1 pm.

Elliot Morley: In that case, I was under a misunderstanding; I thought that the debate would finish at 7 o'clock. I am pleased about that; I may include a little more in my opening remarks. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information.
	The whole issue of GM foods is clearly contentious, complicated and difficult. I have followed the issue closely, both before and since becoming a Minister in 1997 at the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. So I can claim a long involvement in the way that the general debate has been structured, in the Government response and, of course, in the various controversies that surround it.

John Redwood: Will the Minister please explain to the House why the Government decided to hold a consultation exercise, which we applauded, but ignored the strong advice from the British public that the Government were rushing and that all this was premature?

Elliot Morley: The public response has not been ignored; it has shaped our response. If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to GM Nation?, it was always made very clear from the outset that it was not a referendum on GM foods. The whole point of that debate was to allow people to explore the issues and express their concerns, to hear both sides of the argument and to try to engage as many people as possible. It was very much an unusual public consultation exercise, but the public's participation and engagement was useful, and I certainly pay tribute to the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, which organised that consultation exercise.
	I understand people's concerns about GM foods. From the very beginning, I have always had some concerns about the possible impact on the environment. I want to make it clear that the Government's whole approach to GM foods is one in which food safety and the environmental impacts are absolutely paramount, and I shall expand on that in a moment.
	I am sure that I need not explain to the House that we are dealing with a range of opinions about GM. We are also dealing with extremes of opinion. At one extreme, there are people who are involved in the development and marketing of GM foods who do not believe that there is a need for traceability and labelling. They believe that the European Union is acting illegally, and that GM products should have open and unfettered access to our markets. That is not the Government's position. At the other extreme, there are people who, no matter what evidence is presented or how detailed it is, will never ever accept the principle of GM foods. The Government have to find a way through those conflicting positions.

Colin Challen: Some people regard this as a free trade issue. The United States has launched an action against the European Union under World Trade Organisation rules. Have the Government taken a strong position in the European Union, and have they persuaded Ministers and others in European countries to defend the EU moratorium and to fight against sanctions?

Elliot Morley: We have always believed that the EU approach, which is science-based, judges each application on its merits and allows for measures on labelling and traceability, is absolutely right. The challenge in the WTO is based on a mistaken premise. As for the way in which the EU is trying to handle the issue of GM, that is open and transparent, and is not in any way an attempt to apply trade barriers. It reflects the concerns of consumers, both in the EU and other countries, and recognises that there must be a process in the EU, as there must be in the UK. We firmly support that position, and have no intention of moving from it.

Andrew George: Given that the Minister has said that openness and transparency are pre-eminent in the conduct of this debate, does he regret that we are debating not a substantive motion, allowing all Members a vote, but an Adjournment motion on GM crops and foods, long after the Government have made their initial decision?

Elliot Morley: I would regret that if this were the first debate on GM in the House, but it is not. There has been a range of opportunities for Members to express their opinion.

Andrew George: Not in Government time.

Elliot Morley: It is certainly true that some of those opportunities arose in Adjournment debates secured by right hon. and hon. Members, but there have been discussions in various Committees, including European Standing Committees. Many questions have been asked about GM during Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions and, indeed, other departmental questions. There has therefore been a great deal of opportunity to discuss the issue. This is not an issue where, in relation to EU markets and EU trade, we can have a vote and take a different position from the rest of the EU. Our position must be shaped within EU structures, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, and we must adopt a rigorous, thorough and logical approach. I believe that we have already done so, and we must take the same approach to future applications on GM foods and crops.

Peter Ainsworth: rose

Elliot Morley: I am anxious to make progress, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he chairs the Environmental Audit Committee.

Peter Ainsworth: Is the Minister implying that, if the EU decided at some point that we had to grow commercial GM crops, we would have no option but to do so?

Elliot Morley: No, that is not the position at all, although there are complex trade issues, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware. We ourselves have developed some of the processes that have been put in place, to respond to the needs of our country and reflect the views of the public, as expressed in GM Nation?. We have also participated in shaping the EU structure, which must be in place in the single market, as there is an EU competence on food and trade. I believe that that structure is thorough and robust.
	There is a range of players involved, of whom consumers are perhaps the most important. Food safety and environmental safety issues are paramount, but there are also issues of consumer choice. People should have a choice whether or not to buy GM produce. Farmers are another important group. There are farmers who are for GM crops, and others who are against them, and we must listen to both views. The organic sector is important, and we must listen to its views on GM crops and developments. There is the environmental view, which I take seriously, and the food industry view in relation to both the retail and the processing side and on consumer choice and demand.
	Then there is the biotech industry. There are people who think that the biotech industry is all about GM, but I stress that it is much wider than that. It is worth stating that we have world-class institutions in this country and we can be proud of the science and innovation in the UK, which we strongly support. I make no apology for that. Finally, there is potential, and like anything else, that potentialthe claims that are mademust be rigorously examined and subject to due process. There may well be potential in GM crops, if not now, if not from this generation, then in future. I do not know whether that will be the case, but it is important for all of us to have an open mind and to examine the claims that are made on their individual merits.

Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend is making the case that the biotech industry is extremely important to this country, that we all support it and that research into GM food and crops should continue, but is it not true that if we did not grow GM crops or have GM food in this country, it would not damage our science base?

Elliot Morley: It would not necessarily damage our science base, although if one took that position even if a product was demonstrated to be safe and met all the criteria, that might undermine confidence in science. As a general principle, however, I do not disagree with my hon. Friend who, I recognise, has taken a pragmatic and reasonable position.
	I shall not deal in detail with the process that has been put in place, the public debate centred on GM Nation?, a thorough scientific analysis of all the available information, or the scientific report which brought that together and which I found thorough and helpful. The review by the No. 10 strategy unit looked at the economic case for GM and was no apologist for the GM sector. Again, it was thorough and honest in its interpretation. The field-scale evaluations were the largest and most thorough trial of its kind anywhere in the world. All that has been going on since 1997, so no one can accuse us of rushing into this and of not putting in place a thorough, logical, step-by-step approach to evaluating GM crops.

Andrew Murrison: The Minister speaks about debate, but there is no point in debate unless it is reflected in policy. Is he aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), when speaking for the Government in European Standing Committee C on 26 April, spoke for a total of 42 minutes and mentioned GM Nation? only once, and that that was only when prompted by other hon. Members? Does that reflect the Government's attitude towards GM Nation? and public debate on this important issue?

Elliot Morley: That is a strange point. In a European Standing Committee, there is up to one hour of questions to the Minister, so it is no surprise to me that my hon. Friend spoke for 42 minutes. I have read the Official Report of the Committee, and I thought she answered the questions that were put to her in a detailed and thorough way. The questions reflected the concerns that emerged from GM Nation?, which the Government acknowledge. That is why we have been so determined to approach the matter cautiously and pragmatically and on a case-by-case basis.
	Much of the focus has been on the GM maize that was given the go-ahead. It always had approval, I remind the House. It was not given approvalit was given the go-ahead because of the voluntary moratorium. A point that is often ignored is that we are one of the few countries to have rejected GM crops after a thorough field-based evaluation that took into account the effect on biodiversity into account. I am not aware of other countries that have taken that significant step.

Simon Thomas: I am glad that the Minister has enough time to take interventions. His point is valid, and the Government should be congratulated on conducting field-scale evaluations, which have helped the debate. Does he accept that the unique point about GM technology is its irreversibility? Many changes in agricultural practice were mistakesfor example, grubbing up hedgerows, the movement to monoculture and the move away from some organic practicesbut they will undoubtedly be corrected in the United Kingdom, particularly given the reform of the common agricultural policy.
	GM technology releases novel genes that cannot be re-extracted from the environment, and it is right and proper to exercise extreme caution. Does the Minister think that more work should be done on the health impact of GM food? Following the field-scale evaluations of the environmental impact of GM crops, a little more work should be done on the health impact of GM food and the potential for genes to be retained within the human organism.

Elliot Morley: We should never take where we are for granted, or our current position as the definitive position. I talked today to the Food Standards Agency, which told me about its ongoing research into the effect of GM food on health. Its research relates not only to the current generation of GM products but, for example, to GM oils. The research is ongoing, and our scientific review identified the point, which we take seriously, that more information and more research are always needed. I therefore agree with part of the hon. Gentleman's argument.
	Our scientific evaluations have looked for adverse effects of GM products on consumers and the environment. We have considered not only our own research but what is happening internationally, and we will continue to do sowe constantly examine whether our position is wrong and are not complacent. We actively seek further information, which might mean modifying our position, but there is no reputable evidence of adverse health effects from eating GM food. That is the current position, but we do not regard it as the final word and we will continue to research the matter and to monitor other work on the subject.
	The time scale for the evaluation was driven by scientific requirements and not by external pressures, such as trade pressure or demands from the US. In all the time that I have been involved with the matter, I can honestly say that I have seen no evidence of external pressure on the UK evaluation.
	Hon. Members will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced the results of the farm-scale evaluations to the House and how we will take the matter forward. We will implement co-existence measures on potential authorisation for growing GM crops and a potential liability scheme. Although the shape of the liability scheme is open to discussion, the Government believe that it should be financed by the biotech sector, which will produce the crops. The consultation on that matter will be made public before the House goes into recess, and it will continue throughout the summer until the autumn, when we will have an opportunity to evaluate the responses with a view to implementing measures for next year. With the withdrawal of the application for GM maize, no applications will take place in 2005possibly not even in 2006so there is plenty of time in which to implement the measures.
	I accept what the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) says about irreversible technology and recognise that it must be a consideration in what we do. I also accept that in considering its potential, one must apply the principle of proportionality. As he will be aware, GM maize is not native to the UK and has no wild relative, and its seeds will not survive a winter in the soil. In the case of that particular product, the technology is not irreversible, but we may of course have to consider the issue in deciding whether other products are to be approved. I am sure that our expert advisory bodies will take that into account.

Andrew George: Will the Minister clarify the position that the Government intend to take on liability? He has said, as did the Secretary of State in her statement, that he would like a liability scheme to be put in place. However, the Government have made it clear that they do not intend to fund it, and neither, according to its response, does the industry. Given that the industry is not prepared to consider such a scheme, is it merely desirable or absolutely mandatory in relation to any future planting of GM crops?

Elliot Morley: Our view is that we need a liability scheme to provide confidence, not least in the biotech sector itself. The hon. Gentleman is trying to get me to pre-empt the results of the consultation on the draft proposals. He will have an opportunity to comment on that if he so chooses, as will other hon. Members.
	I want to deal with one more issue before I bring my remarks to a close. Although I may be wrong, I suspect that the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), may want to make a few comments in relation to the Government's response, and I want to take this opportunity to say a few words in advance. Hon. Members who serve on that Committee and on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee will know that I regard them very highly and always take their reports seriously. Indeed, I always try to incorporate their recommendations in Government policyI have been successful in doing that in the past and hope to be so in future.

Gregory Barker: I am pleased to hear the Minister's comments, but if that is the case why did the Government publish their recommendation just four days after the Environmental Audit Committee published its report?

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman might have allowed me to expand my argument, as I intend to deal with that matter. It is certainly true that we made it clear in our response to the Committee that we did not agree with some of its specific criticisms; and today the Committee made it clear that it does not agree with some of our specific responses, as is its proper and democratic right. That was evident from what the hon. Member for East Surrey said on Radio 4.
	As for the Government's going ahead with the announcement four days after the publication of the Committee's report, I can assure the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) that on the day the report came out I went through it thoroughly and asked my officials these key questions. Does it contain something new that we need to take into account? Does it contain evidence of which we were unaware? And does it contain something that we have not considered in relation to the approach that was outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? The answer to those questions was no. Everything in the Committee's report had been actively considered by DEFRA and by our expert advisory committees.
	The Committee's principal point was about atrazine, which had been raised in the House on several occasions. We specifically asked the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment to consider that, and members of the Committee will know that the scientists involved in the farm-scale evaluations produced their report in Nature the same day as the Committee's report was published. The scientists' report tackled some of the points in scientific terms.
	We believed that the Environmental Audit Committee was mistaken in not inviting the scientists who conducted the farm-scale evaluations to appear before it to answer some of its specific concerns. It is not for me to tell the Committee whom it should invite; I merely make a comment. However, I note that the Royal Society echoed it in a press release that it issued today. I do not want to say too much about the Royal Society's comments to the EAC because they are a matter for the Committee.

Peter Ainsworth: The Minister is perceptiveif I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall indeed wish to deal with several points later. The Royal Society did not have the courtesy to send the Committee a copy of any press release today.
	May I commend the Minister on his speed reading? He said that he read our report and considered it carefully on the day we issued it. Given that the Government and the Department experienced difficulty in replying to our previous reports in the usual agreed and allotted time, I commend the Minister on reading in a single day a report that stretches to 250 pages and responding to it with such alacrity.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman may remember that the report was published on a Friday and I therefore read it over a weekend. It made for interesting reading. Of course there are sometimes time lags before responses appear. I am keen to respond to Select Committees as quickly as possible. However, it is not always possible to respond quickly, sometimes because the recommendations are genuinely complex. That was not the case with the EAC report, which contained nothing new that we had not already considered. That is why, after all the years of farm-scale evaluations and preparation, which went beyond the scope of FSEs, there was no case for holding up the announcement, especially as it was already behind schedule and many people were waiting for it. It was only right and proper that not only the House but the many other stakeholders heard the Government's response and the way in which we would deal with applications. We did not believe that there was anything to be gained from delaying the announcement.
	I am sure that the hon. Member for East Surrey wants to make other points about the matter and I shall listen to him with interest. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality will pick them up in his reply. However, I emphasise that I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point on behalf of the Committee that the Government's response contains several wilful or careless misinterpretations of the report. People who know me know that we would not act in that way and that we try to take such matters seriously. I simply stress to the hon. Gentleman and other Committee members that sometimes we disagree. One cannot always produce a report and expect people to believe that it is absolutely correct, especially if it is not backed up in every case with scientific evidence to contradict the expert evidence that the Committee heard and the Government received.
	All that is not to say that we dismiss the report. As I said, I have taken careful account of it. However, I do not accept the claim that the Government wilfully or carelessly misinterpreted it. We have some disagreements and we have spelt out where they arise.

Sue Doughty: On the timing of the Government's announcement so soon after the report's publication, the Minister said that several people were waiting for it. I do not wish to be unkind to the Department, but it is not unusual for people to wait for information from it. Who are the people who needed the information so urgently, and why did the Government listen to their wishes as opposed to all the others who await answers from the Department?

Elliot Morley: This was a three-year process and it was also very public, given the way in which we actively encouraged ACRE to hold an open meeting when it evaluated the FSEs. I would like to pay tribute to ACRE, along with our expert advisory groups and the scientists, for their excellent job of evaluation and for the open and thorough way in which they have done it.
	Although we can disagree on GMI am sure that we shall hear some disagreements in this debateI hope that Members on both sides recognise that we need a process for dealing with this issue.

Colin Challen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Elliot Morley: I am coming to a conclusion, if my hon. Friend does not mind.
	We need a logical, thorough, science-based process that people can understand. We do not accept that there is a blanket case for GM. We have already rejected two licence applications, under the conditions on which they were submitted. The other side of the coin, however, is that there is no blanket case for rejecting all GM applications out of hand. We must adopt a science-based approach and consider each application on its individual merits. We must take into account food safety and the environment, and we must, on occasions, apply the precautionary principle. Where there is genuine doubt, an application might have to be rejected.
	I believe that that represents the kind of thorough process that the House will support. It is certainly the kind of approach that found support, in principle, in the public consultations, even though I acknowledge that some people do not accept GM in any circumstances.

Joan Walley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Elliot Morley: I was about to conclude, but I know that my hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in this matter, and I shall take this last intervention before I finish.

Joan Walley: My hon. Friend talks about the role and importance of science and, presumably, the independence of science. Will he tell us where science for the earth fits into all of this?

Elliot Morley: I am sorry. I did not quite catch that last bit.

Joan Walley: Science for the earth. My hon. Friend talks about the precautionary principle and about environmental issues. Where does he place those alongside the so-called independence of science?

Elliot Morley: Science has to evaluate the information that it has at any given moment, and it must be open to scrutiny. In regard to the approach that we have taken, all the main scientific studies have been independently peer-reviewed. Very few of the claims against GM have gone through that independent peer-review process, but that is the kind of evaluation that we expect. A scientific study is not necessarily the final word, and there must be some form of impartial, independent evaluation. That is also part of the process. I hope that I have answered my hon. Friend's point.
	This is a difficult issue, and we are trying to find a pragmatic way through it. We are also sensitive to public opinion, which is why we have been so thorough, careful and cautious. In the end, however, if we are to use a logical, science-based process that can lead to applications being rejectedas some have beenwe cannot argue against using the same procedures that could, on occasion, demonstrate that GM products might have certain advantages. We cannot argue that they should be automatically rejected.

John Whittingdale: Let me begin by welcoming the fact that the Government have finally made time for this debate on genetically modified crops. It is regrettable that it has taken such a long time for it to be held. It is also a pity that the Secretary of State is not here for it. This is the second time in a week

Elliot Morley: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently engaged at the very highest level with the US Administration on issues of climate change. I know how important those issues are to Members on both sides of the House. I have also heard concerns expressed repeatedly about the US's non-engagement in the Kyoto process, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will congratulate my right hon. Friend on going to the United States to encourage the Administration there to engage in it.

John Whittingdale: Of course I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation as to why the Secretary of State cannot be here. I would just point out that she has now been absent twice in the space of a week when we have been discussing major issues affecting her Department. This is not a one-off.

Gregory Barker: We have had to wait years for this debatethis is the first time this subject has been discussed on the Floor of the House in Government time. Given that this is such an important debate, is it not extraordinary that a window of opportunity could not have been found for it during one of the brief periods when the Secretary of State has dropped into the United Kingdom?

John Whittingdale: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Clearly, the timing of last week's debate, which was on an Opposition day, was chosen by us. As he points out, however, this is a Government debate, which the business managers have been seeking to schedule for a long time. We welcome the fact that it has finally arrived, but it is a pity that they managed to schedule it at a time when, as must have been known for quite a long time, the Secretary of State could not attend.
	It would have been better if the debate could have taken place much earlier, and if it could have taken place before the Government took their decision to allow the licensing of a particular GM crop. Instead, today's debate is taking place not just after the decision has been taken to allow GM maize, but after the decision of the seed manufacturer to abandon its plans to introduce GM maize into this country. As a result, there seems little likelihood of any commercial growing of GM crops for the foreseeable future.

Elliot Morley: I want to clarify this matter, on which I touched in my opening remarks, as there is sometimes confusion surrounding it. The Government did not give the approval to the GM maize. We lifted the moratorium. The approval for planting the GM maize was agreed in January 1997.

John Whittingdale: I accept the distinction that the hon. Gentleman makes. The fact is that essentially the Government gave the green light[Interruption.] He must accept that the Secretary of State came to the House a few months ago and essentially said that the Government were willing to accept an application for the commercial growing of GM maize.

Simon Thomas: Both the hon. Gentleman and the Minister are missing the important point. Although the approval may have been given back in 1997, everything about which the Minister has been talking for 20 minutesthe logical process, the science-based process and the evidence-based processhas happened since 1997. It is therefore vital that the House is clear that such decisions are being made on the basis of that process. It is neither here nor there whether or not the approval was given in 1997. It would have been very bad had the approval gone ahead in 1997, because all the logic that the Minister talked about would not have been in place. In a sense, therefore, the hon. Gentleman is right that we are discussing a decision that has been made now, following all the evidence-based research. We cannot dismiss that simply because an approval was given, almost on the off-chance, within the European Union.

John Whittingdale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is the case that there was a moratorium while the Government rightly conducted the farm-scale evaluations. We have always believed that the Government are right to proceed cautiously, but we still have concerns about the circumstances in which they decided to accept that the farm-scale evaluations showed that GM maize should be allowed to be introduced.
	I want to step back a little and examine the question of GM, which causes profound concern to a large number of people in the country. There are strongly held views on both sides of the argument, and in each of our respective political parties, which I suspect may become apparent during the debate. Many people point out that genetic modification has been going on for hundreds of years. Man has always tried to improve the quality of crops and livestock by genetic manipulation. All that has changed in the last few years is that science has provided a faster and more reliable means of doing that. Such a technique has been established in many countries, and as a result, it is almost certainly the case that everyone in the Chamber has at some time eaten food with genetically modified ingredients, or is wearing clothes that are made from GM fibre. Most scientific opinion accepts that it is safe to do so. Certainly I accept that there is little evidence of serious risk to human health in countries that have allowed genetic modification of crops for a number of years, such as America, Canada and Argentina. I also accept that genetic modification potentially offers great benefits both to farmers who take advantage of it, and to consumers, particularly in the third world.
	Nevertheless there are serious concerns, particularly about the effect of the introduction of GM crops on our environment and on wildlife. For that reason, we have always taken the view that we should proceed cautiously, on a case-by-case basis and only when there is clear scientific evidence that there is no risk. I think the Minister will agree that that is sensible. As I said earlier, that is why we supported the FSEson the basis that they would provide the scientific underpinning for any risk assessment preceding the commercial introduction of any particular crop.
	At first sight, the results seemed to show clearly that the introduction of two of the four crops trialled had led to a reduction in biodiversity, while the introduction of one, GMHT forage maize, had led to an improvement. We still have no results for the fourth crop, winter-sown oilseed rape. In their response to the Environmental Audit Committee's report, the Government said that they were awaiting the results with interest.
	Like the Committee, I am sorry that the results for all four crops were not published at the same time. While it is obviously right for us to examine each crop individually, there is no doubt that the public's attitude will be influenced by the overall results. A positive outcome for three out of four will be seen very differently from a half good, half bad result. I should be interested to learn when the Minister expects the Government to be able to release the results of the trials of the fourth crop.
	The Minister referred to the criticism that the Government had reached their decision just a few days after the EAC had reported. In fact, it is worse than that. We know that the decision was actually made in Cabinet during the week before the publication of the report. Indeed, we know that the real decision was made about a month earlier, when the matter was put to the Cabinet Sub-Committee. We know because the minutes of the Sub-Committee were subsequently leaked. It was revealed that the Government had instructed their supporters to
	prepare the ground with key MPs, particularly those with an interest in science or food security.
	While I sympathise with the Minister, who gave up his weekend to read the EAC's report in order to convince himself that nothing in it had not already been taken into account, we know that the decision had already been made before the report was even published. That shows a degree of contempt for the work of Select Committees. It seems that the Government are so uninterested in Select Committees' views that they cannot wait a while to hear the recommendations and take account of the evidence before reaching a decision.

Elliot Morley: It is true that the recommendations on the FSEs were put to SCI(BIO), a Cabinet Committee. That is part of the process of government, and part of the process of all Governments. It does not detract from the fact that the process relating to the announcement and the details was under way when the EAC's report was published. The process that I have describedthat of trying to establish whether there is anything newapplies here as well.
	As for the winter-sown oilseed, the papers are currently being peer-reviewed. After that the details will be made available, probably towards the end of the year. So that I do not inadvertently mislead the House, let me add that the GM maize approved in January 1997 was the Bt-176 version. The T25 maize was approved in August 1998.

John Whittingdale: I am grateful to the Minister, particularly for his clarification on the fourth crop that was trialled, and for his other points. I accept that, obviously, any decision can be reversed until it is announced, and I suppose that it can even be reversed after that. The process goes on, as the Minister says, until the Secretary of State comes to the House. However, it is nevertheless the case that the key bodies that took the decision in this instance reached their conclusions before the Committee had published its report. That is simply a matter of fact.
	In its report, the Environmental Audit Committee raised serious concerns about the validity of the trials and despite the Minister's words, those concerns still need to be addressed. He referred to the concern that in three quarters of the cases, the herbicide regime applied to the conventional crop being compared with GM maize involved the use of atrazine, a herbicide now recognised as devastating to biodiversity that is being banned in the EU from next year. Given that, it is perhaps unsurprising that the GMHT crop was seen to be advantageous to biodiversity, because it was being compared with a crop that had been treated with atrazine.
	In their response to the Committee's report, the Government say that that does not invalidate the trial because it is the herbicide management of conventional maize that is changing, not that of GM maize. However, surely the whole basis of the trials was to compare the effect on biodiversity of the GM crop and its conventional equivalent, and it is that comparison that is now wholly undermined because the comparator will no longer be available in this country. The decision by Bayer CropScience to withdraw its application for seed listing of its GM maize creates an opportunity to look at that matter a little further. I ask the Government to do that, and perhaps to use a comparison crop and herbicide regime that is in current usage today, so that a proper and fair comparison can be made.
	The Committee also, rightly, drew attention to the experience in North America, where there is evidence that the use of GM herbicide-tolerant crops has led to herbicide-resistant volunteers in the following year's crops and that, over time, that has caused the increased, not the decreased, use of herbicides. The Minister has acknowledged that concerns arising from the experience in Canada are important and should be taken into account, but there have been other reports, too. Recently it was reported in Argentina that the use of Roundup Ready soya had led to growing numbers of resistant volunteers, with the result that herbicide use had doubled since the crops were first planted seven years ago. In the breathing space that we have been given, I hope that the Government will look much more carefully at the results of research into the experience of other countries around the world.

Elliot Morley: I am certainly happy to give that assurance: we do need to look at experience around the world. However, this is a double-edged argument. With Bt cotton, pesticide use has gone down, much to the benefit of the agricultural workers who work with it. We have to take the hon. Gentleman's point into account, however.
	The issue of atrazine was carefully examined by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, and it concluded that the trials were still valid. Atrazine is being phased out not because of its detrimental impact on biodiversity but because it is a very persistent herbicide and because of its effect on ground water. It was also a pre-emergent spray, and it is likely that it will be replaced by another pre-emergent spray, which has a bearing on this matter. Hon. Members will also recall that one of the conditions of the maize trial was that there would be further evaluation in relation to non-atrazine herbicides, even though that was not necessarily required on the scientific advice. A belt-and-braces approach was taken, and we will continue that research.

John Whittingdale: I accept what the Minister says on the reasons why atrazine has been withdrawn, and I welcome the fact that further evaluations will take place and his assurance that the Government are willing to look at experience round the world. I am not in the business of prejudging the results, any more than he is. We maintain an open mind, in the same way as he is trying to persuade us he does, but it is important that all the relevant research should be carefully examined before we progress further. Our concern, highlighted in the Select Committee report, is that important research has not been properly evaluated before decisions have been reached.
	I do not want to repeat every concern expressed by the Select Committee about the validity of the farm-scale trials, but I am concerned that the Government have not only ignored the findings in reaching their decision but, as has happened again today, have been quick to dismiss them.

Robert Key: I commend my hon. Friend's thoughtful and cautious approach, but I am a little concerned about where his argument will take us. He knows that I think it would be to the disadvantage of British agriculture and consumers and our environment to write off for ever the possibility of introducing GM crops commercially. I hope that he will recognise that this debate is dominated by the Select Committee aficionados and that there will almost certainly not be time for many people to speak who do not share their view. I hope that his policy will not be blown off course by a single Select Committee report and that he will maintain a careful and cautious view in the long term.

John Whittingdale: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. He and I have discussed these matters before, and I know that there are differences of opinion on both sides. Our intention is to proceed cautiously, but certainly with an open mind. I hope that he will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate later. I will leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) to go into more detail on the Committee's specific recommendations.
	Supporters and opponents of GM crops alike recognise that before commercial cultivation can take place in this country there must be a clear legal framework, and I welcome the Minister's acknowledgement of that. The dangers of cross-pollination, contaminating conventional crops, are well known. Many farmers will wish to market their produce as non-GM. Organic farmers, in particular, have invested large sums in acquiring organic status and risk their livelihoods if their crops are contaminated. Organic farming has enjoyed steady growth over the past 10 years, but it is still not sufficient to meet domestic demand. We need a clear set of rules on co-existence before any GM crops are introduced. In particular, the issues of separation distances and liability for contamination must be resolved.

Mark Francois: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I, too, serve on the Environmental Audit Committee, and he will know that my colleague on the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), introduced a private Member's Bill to try to resolve exactly that grey area. Is it not very unfortunate, given that uncertainty, that the Labour party killed it?

John Whittingdale: Indeed, that was exactly the point I was about to come to. That Bill would have provided a perfect opportunity to tackle these very important questions. I know, having talked to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), that he discussed it with the Minister, who told him that he would listen carefully to his arguments and judge the Bill accordingly. I therefore share my colleagues' astonishment at the fact that he did not turn up for the Second Reading debate, and that the Bill was killed off by one of his stooges about 13 minutes after the debate had begun. He owes my hon. Friend and the House an explanation for the Government's actions, because we and the industry have been left with no real idea of the legal framework for the regulations that are a prerequisite for any commercial planting.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of what happened on that day in relation to the collapse of business, but he may not know that, although the House was inquorate, Labour Members joined Opposition Members in the Lobby. If the Bill was so important, one might have thought that the Opposition would have got enough Members in to support it.

John Whittingdale: As the Minister was not present that day, he is perhaps unaware that one of his colleagues was directly responsible for what happened. It was one of his colleagues who moved the motion that the House do sit in private, which often results in the business being lost. The Minister has told us of the many opportunities to debate GM in recent months, and he mentioned such debates taking place in Standing Committees and in Westminster Hall. But on the one occasion on which this issue reached the Floor of the House of Commons, the debate lasted just 13 minutes because one of his colleagues killed the Bill off.

Gregory Barker: I should make it absolutely clear that my Bill was killed off through the direct connivance of Labour Whips, who whispered in the ear of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and got him to do their dirty business. Far more than 40 Members were present in the House that day. One or two very honourable exceptions defied the Labour Whips and entered the Lobby, but the others sat on their hands at the direction of the Labour Whips. That is a matter of record.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The record has now been made clear; perhaps we can proceed with the debate before the House.

John Whittingdale: I entirely accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. But the point is an important one, because the issue at stakeliability and compensationis absolutely central to whether GM cultivation takes place in this country.

Peter Ainsworth: At the risk of vexing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, does my hon. Friend agree that, although the Minister was not present when the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) was killed off, it is inconceivable that the Government Whips acted as they did without first consulting the Minister?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled on this matter. I see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's point, but we have well and truly aired this subject.

John Whittingdale: I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, tempting though it is to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) down that path.
	I want to say a little more about the important issue of liability. As has already been pointed out, in her statement to the House the Secretary of State made it clear that the Government are not willing to accept liability or to pay compensation for any contamination of conventional crops by GM. Indeed, the industry has made it clear that it, too, is unwilling to accept liability. A survey last year of principal underwriters in the UK found that neither farmers considering growing GM crops nor non-GM farmers seeking to protect their businesses from contamination by GM crops would be able to find anyone willing to give them insurance. So as the Select Committee says in its response to the Government,
	it appears that the Government is happy to leave conventional and organic farmers exposed to the possibility of severe financial losses and the GM industry free from mandatory inclusion in any scheme to establish proper liability.
	That failure is enough on its own to prevent commercial cultivation from taking place. So in effect, having given a green light to planting, the Government have immediately erected a road-block to any further progress.
	There is one other obstacle to the introduction of GM that is perhaps even more insurmountable: public opinion. All the polls continue to show a clear majority who say that they would refuse to eat GM food, and almost all the major retailers regard assuring their customers that their products are GM-free as a marketing necessity.
	In her statement to the House, the Secretary of State was refreshingly honest. She admitted that the GM Nation? debate showed widespread opposition to the commercialisation of GM crops. What is more, as people learned more about it, their hostility deepened. The truth is that, as with other safety issuesthe measles, mumps and rubella vaccine; nuclear power stations; mobile telephonespeople do not trust the assurances that they are given. Until that changes, there is little likelihood of there being a market in this country for GM foods.

Colin Challen: A certain degree of party-political disputatiousnessif there is such a wordhas crept into the debate. I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I have not been able to determine from what he said his party's exact position on GM. It seems to reflect a desire for more scientific discovery of the quality or otherwise of GM, but will he say clearlyso that no one can accuse his party of being populist by saying in its manifesto before the next election that it is against GM, when that may not actually be the casewhat exactly he is calling for? Is he, for example, calling for an extended moratorium on GM?

John Whittingdale: I would hate to be accused of disputatiousness and I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman. I think that I have already made it clear that we keep an open mind, but wish to proceed cautiously on a case-by-case basis and having regard to clear scientific evidence. My concernit is also the concern of manyis that the scientific evidence is not clear and that there has been no proper assessment of some of the serious concerns expressed about farm-scale evaluations. It is also important to take account of the experience of other countries that have had a much longer history of GM cultivation. Until such evaluations have taken place, we would not support the introduction of commercial cultivation in this country.

Andrew George: In the spirit of wanting to avoid unnecessary political disputatiousness and while he is talking about the public desire for GM on the shop shelves, will the hon. Gentleman clarify for the record what market assessments were undertaken by the previous Conservative Government when they gave the necessary approvals for GM soya and tomato puree?

John Whittingdale: There is a distinct difference between approving the sale of GM products where concerns were expressed about health but where the scientific evidence is pretty clear, and approving GM cultivation where the concerns are primarily environmental. It is those concerns that we believe have not yet been adequately addressed.
	However much the scientific evidence suggests that people should feel able to buy GM products, it is clear at the moment that people are not persuaded of the case. We believe strongly that people should have the necessary information to enable them to make a choice. People want assurances that the food that they buy really is GM free, and the EU labelling requirements certainly go some way towards achieving that, but some concerns remain on that front, too. Some people fear that, despite their best efforts, they may fall foul of the new regulations.
	One particular example cited over the last few days is that of beekeepers, who obviously cannot tell their bees where they can and cannot go. If GM crops are introduced into this country, there is a real possibility of the bees foraging on them. Beekeepers will then be faced with the choice of either testing their honey at considerable expense in order to demonstrate that there is no GM content, or labelling it as possibly containing GM. At the moment, that would almost certainly spell commercial death.
	There remain real concerns about the knock-on effects to industry as a whole and the possible costs that many businesses might incur as a result of the introduction of GM. As I say, however, Conservative Members are not opposed to GM crops in principle. We recognise the benefits to our farmers and consumers that such crops could bring, but many questions remain to be answered before the Government proceed. I   have to tell the House that, despite the Government statement last week and despite the Minister's comments this afternoon, the Government have still not provided satisfactory answers to those questions.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches in this debate.

Joan Ruddock: When I spoke to a colleague about this debate and my opposition to GM, she simply shrugged and said, But it's progress, and you can't stop progress. I do not accept that the commercialisation of GM crops is progress. I believe that it is a reckless experiment with our natural environment and human healthan experiment conducted by a handful of companies that have consistently made false claims for their products, evaded public scrutiny and resisted every attempt to regulate their behaviour.
	GM technology was not introduced to deal with problems in this country or the developing world. It was developed by companies seeking to control agricultural practices that would boost their profits

David Drew: And their pesticides.

Joan Ruddock: And their pesticides, as my hon. Friend notes from a sedentary position.
	The apparently simple genetic modifications made to GM crops to ensure tolerance to their brand chemicals or the expression of insect toxins are quite unlike conventional breeding, contrary to what the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) said in his opening remarks. The constructs that create genetically modified organisms are designed to cross species barriers. They introduce foreign DNA, parts of bacteria and viruses, and often carry antibiotic resistance markers. They are inherently unstable, and are expressed in every part of the plant without the control mechanisms that affect the plant's natural genome.
	Yet, despite the obvious differences, the biotech industry has based its safety case on the concept of substantial equivalencethat is, that the GM product is substantially equivalent to the non-GM product. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment spoke about the peer review process, but there is no question of peer review in the substantial equivalence dossiers, as they are produced by the companies involved in GM.
	I shall give an example. Last week, the Government voted in the EU Agriculture Council for a marketing consent to be given to GM sweetcorn Bt11 on the basis of substantial equivalence. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), last month told European Standing Committee C that the sweetcorn had undergone rigorous safety tests. However, Government scientists had not seen the complete scientific dossiersupplied, of course, by the biotech companyand there is no public access to the data provided.
	Crucially, the testing of the Bt toxin was based on the natural bacteria and not the GM plant itself, even though unconnected insect trials have shown no adverse affects from Bt bacteria, but serious damage from Bt plant toxin. Furthermore, no details could be provided on allergenicity, despite increasing evidence of allergic reactions to GM products.
	For example, in the US, a Bt maize called Starlink, which was designed for animal feed, got into the human food chain. Fifty people reported allergies, some of which were serious, and the company lost $1 billion in recalled food. In Germany, a pro-GM farmer fed his cattle Bt maize. Some of the cattle fell sick, and 12 died. Again, the company paid compensation, but denied liability.
	Do the Government propose to continue to support the marketing of new GM foods in the face of such evidence, on the basis of substantial equivalence? My hon. Friend the Minister said that there is ongoing independent research into food safety. If so, why are approvals being given before we see the results of those ongoing experiments? I shall table a parliamentary question asking him to prepare a list of all the experiments that he saysand I believe himare taking place.
	Has there been any follow-up to the one studyat Newcastle universityin which human volunteers ate GM, and in which the GM material entered the gut bacteria of at least three people after only one meal? It is vital that we know what the follow-up experiments were. Frankly, I want to know what the Food Standards Agency is up to, because I am not convinced that it has carried out its public duty to protect public health in that respect. If it is carrying out further independent research, why did it say that the dossier provided under the novel food regulation for sweetcorn Bt 11 was satisfactory?
	I turn to the environmental issues that are the direct responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister. I give him credit for responding to the many concerns that we have raised with him and I give his Department credit for initiating the field-scale evaluations. Of course the trials have value in themselves, but the Environmental Audit Committee pointed out that
	the scope of the trials was very narrow and the results cannot be regarded as adequate grounds for a decision to be taken in favour of commercialisation.
	I could not agree more.
	The experience of commercial growing of GM crops in north America and Argentina reinforces that statement. Argentina's experiment with GM is proving a disaster. That was highlighted when a toxic cloud, caused by farmers using a cocktail of powerful chemicals in a desperate bid to control the weeds in their GM soya, enveloped a rural village. It is worth repeating what the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford saidthat throughout Argentina GM farmers are now using twice the level of chemicals that conventional soya farmers are using. GM farmers are also resorting to the pernicious pesticides paraquat and atrazine to control herbicide-resistant weeds.
	A similar pattern of increasing chemical usage has emerged in Canada with GM canolaor oilseed rape, as we know it. Contamination of non-GM crops has wiped out the organic canola industry and 95 per cent. of conventional canola seed is now contaminated by GM.
	The lessons for the UK are clear. Experience to date indicates that GM crops do not fulfil the promises of less chemical use or consistently higher yields, and contamination of non-GM and organic crops and seeds is the norm. The Minister mentioned cotton and the reduced chemical use, but that has been the pattern of all other GM cropsan initial reduction in chemicals used, then year-on-year increases. There have also been spectacular failures of GM cotton crops in some developing countries. GM cotton does not have a clean bill of health.
	The challenge for the Government, in the face of their willingness to permit the growing of even one GM crop in this country, is how to guarantee consumer choice. Can the Minister guarantee that Britain's growing organic industry will not only be protected, but expanded? Can he guarantee the purity of seed stocks? The key issues are liability and co-existence. Rules must be enshrined in statute, as the Agriculture and Environment and Biotechnology Commission has made clear, because voluntary agreements will not work.
	Most importantly, who will be liable when non-GM or organic products are contaminated with GM? The biotech companies have said that they will not pay, and the insurance companies have said that they will not insure. How will the Government's commitment to sustainable farming and the organic action plan survive if GM crops are planted commercially? The Minister said that maize will be safe because it does not cross-pollinate and its seeds do not survive the winter. But we know that contamination occurs through farm machinery, in transport and in other ways. Nothing is safe unless we have adequate separation distances and a proper liability regime.
	Are the Government deaf to the wishes of consumers, 86 per cent. of whom have said that they are not happy with the idea of eating GM food? How can we ensure choice? GM can be detected at the level of 0.1 per cent. and that is the current benchmark used by supermarkets for their GM-free products. To guarantee future production to that level, seed purity must be maintained. Do the Government intend to support the EU proposal for 0.30.5 per cent. seed purity, which would jeopardise all future attempts to meet the standard 0.1 per cent. that is now accepted for the end product?
	In only a few minutes, it is impossible to do justice either to this subject or to the comprehensive briefing materials that have been supplied by Friends of the Earth, Five Year Freeze, the Soil Association, GeneWatch UK and the Consumers Association. The Government have had the benefit of a huge amount of advice from their many experts, but none of it is conclusive. The science remains uncertain, the economics unproven and the public hostile, and the myth that GM will save the starving is well on the way to being exploded, yet Ministers constantly vote in European Councils for marketing consents for new GM foods to be sold in this country and were rescued from their desperate decision on the commercialisation of GM maize only by the company's decision to pull out of the UK.
	I appeal to my colleagues to think again, to use the time that is now available for truly independent research on GM, to support the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) and to establish a statutory framework for co-existence and liability that will guarantee consumer choice and a future for sustainable farming and safe food.

Andrew George: It is always an honour to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). She has taken a consistent approach and always asks responsible questions on this subject. Debates on GM in the Chamber are always richer for her contribution.
	As the Minister rightly said in his opening remarks, the GM debate has been characterised by extremes, although they are not represented in the Chamber; neither the scientific cavaliers nor the blinkered Luddites have appeared in any GM debate in which I have been involved in this place, although there may be different perspectives on how sound the science should be before decisions should be taken. That is very much the nub of the issue that we are debating. Some people may be less cautious about progress on the issue, but no Member who has taken part in the debate has taken either a blinkered or a cavalier approach, which is encouraging.
	Beyond A-levels, I make no great claim to have significant scientific qualifications that would enable me to pontificate on the subject, so I speak as a non-scientist. In the context of the decisions that have to be made, the scientific focus seems to be on the environmental consequences rather than those for human health, although questions have been put about the human health aspects.
	We might consider the US population as a pilot study for the impact of GM on human health. There are many Cornish migrs in the USA and I have many family connections there. I love the place and the people tremendously, although I do not share their life style or their political view of the world. We must assume that their current political viewpoints are not the result of eating GM food, so we need other evidence to prove the risks to human health.
	We already know about the possible environmental risks due to the release of GM, so it is appropriate that there should be robust scientific evidence to prove that a GM product would not have an adverse affect on biodiversity or the wider environment. The Government have largely accepted that approach.
	The Minister knows that I remain extremely unhappy with the way in which the Government have handled such debates in this, the pre-eminent debating and scrutiny Chamber in the United Kingdom. I have put my views on record on many occasions, and the cross-party motion that I sponsoredmotion 25 on today's Order Papercertainly emphasises the point that hon. Members in all parties wish the Government to be a little more transparent and open in engaging with such debates in the Chamber.
	We suggest that the Government table a substantive motion, with a vote, for debate on the Floor of the House, so that all hon. Members can take part and express their views about the Government's approach not just to GM crops and GM foods, but to the whole GM issue, as it affects this country and the decisions that the Governmentor at least Government agencies, such as the Food Standards Agency have to make on our behalf. Such a debate would allow us to give the Minister evidence of the Government's inconsistent approach to GM.
	I have raised the issue at business questions, but on 29 January the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford received the following answer from the Leader of the House:
	as soon as we are in a position to do so we are committed to having a debate. I am sure that there will be no question of proceeding with any decision until the debate has occurred.[Official Report, 29 January 2004; Vol. 417, c. 398.]
	That clearly indicates that we were due to have the debate before the decision was made, not after the statement to the House on 9 March, and I protested about that to the Secretary of State.
	Although I am sure that the Minister is tired of hearing me say this, I must emphasise that, on that issue and that of the statement on single farm payments, it is simply not good enough for DEFRA Ministers to come to the House to treat the Chamber as a notice board, rather than a debating chamber. Some of us largely support the approach that the Government are taking in both respects, and they would find the debate far better and more consensual if they were able to bring such issues to the House, engage with it and allow open scrutiny, rather than treating the House as a notice board for an hour during a statement.
	Despite what the Minister told me earlier, the statement is the only time that the Government have given to the issue. All the Adjournment debates, all the scrutiny in the Select Committees and all the European Standing Committee debates on the issue have resulted from other Committees and Back Benchers bringing these matters to the Government's attention. I am sorry to labour that point, but I hope that I am driving it home, so that the Minister and Department take it on board and do not make the same mistake again.
	A number of issues were raised in the statement, and the Minister has dealt with some of them to an extent. The Government have decided to accept that Chardon LL maize can be grown in the United Kingdom. They expected that it would be grown from the spring of next year, but the Secretary of State said in her statement of 9 March that Bayer would need to submit fresh evidence if it wanted to renew the licence from October 2006. At the time, I askedI do not think that the Minister has answered thiswhy it would be acceptable to grow that maize in the spring of 2005, but not in 2007. There was a further question about the weight of evidence. Given that new evidence will be required for Chardon LL GM maize to be grown in the UK from October 2006, will new evidence be required for other types of GM maize and, if so, what evidence? I do not wish to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation, but do the Government believe that, although the industry has made it clear that it is not prepared to fund a liability scheme, one should nevertheless be put in place? The Government are not prepared to fund such a scheme, and I doubt whether the farming industry is prepared to do so across the board, so there is a logjam. If the issue remains unresolved, does that mean that there can be no commercialisation of GM in this country?

Elliot Morley: I am happy to clarify the position as far as I can at this stage in the process. The Government have made it clear that there should be a liability scheme, just as there should be a co-existence scheme, and I have outlined to the House the steps being taken to put them in place. If, after consultation, a liability scheme is put in place and if it is determined that it should be based on an industry contribution, it is up to the biotech industry to decide whether it wants to operate under those conditionsthat is the choice that it must make.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister, but clearly some farmers and growers will suffer unintended consequences as a result of the decision on the commercial growing of GM and may be put out of business. It is therefore important to reassure people who want to retain their edge in the marketplace as non-GM organic growers that they will not be undermined, and that there is a liability scheme to which they can appeal if they are affected. I am grateful for the Minister's assurance, and I look forward to the Government's publication of the consultation documents on the liability and co-existence schemes, both of which are fundamental to the future of the industry.
	The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) mentioned beekeepers. The Minister raises his eyebrows, but perhaps he will clarify the position.

Elliot Morley: I am grateful for an opportunity to do so. Under the thresholds agreed by the EU, food is deemed to be GM only if its GM content is over 0.9 per cent. Honey could not exceed that level, so it could not be labelled as GM.

Andrew George: I am sure that the beekeepers of the UK will be reassured by that explanation. They would not want the GM content of any of their products to exceed 0.1 per cent.the organic standard that some people believe should be the absolute thresholdso I am sure that the Minister will receive further correspondence from them.
	For regions and localities that wish to maintain their market edge the establishment of GM-free zones mentioned by the Secretary of State in her statement on 9 March will be extremely important. There are many places, including my own area of west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, where the majority of growers want to take full advantage of being able to promote their product as GM free. What statutory support will be available for them? The Secretary of State suggested that the matter would be kept under review and that she would consult EU colleagues about the introduction of more robust measures. That is extremely important.
	If the Government intend to introduce measures to protect farmers, or at least to ensure that growers and farmers have the option of trying to dissuade other growers who may be considering growing GM in their vicinity, it would be interesting to hear what mechanisms might be put in place to allow that to happen. Because a few farmers and growers want to remain GM-free, we should not take the view that no GM should be grown in the UK, but when all the assurances have been given and the Government have made a proper decision based on sound science, there should still be the opportunity for local measures to be taken to protect growers and to enable them to maintain clear market advantage.

David Drew: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I tabled an early-day motion on the possibility of introducing buffer zones for pesticide use. I know he had some difficulties with aspects of that early-day motion. I spoke to the National Farmers Union, which thought it would be impractical to operate buffer zones for pesticides in this country because land space is so tight. If it is impossible for pesticides, how does the hon. Gentleman think such a measure would operate for GM?

Andrew George: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. I am not a spokesman for the NFU or any agricultural body. Establishing buffer zones for pesticides should be a great deal easier, given that they would not be wind blown, one hopes, whereas pollen seeds could be carried very long distances. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should put his question to others.

Joan Walley: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's comments about commercial growers and the ways in which organic commercial growers could maintain their integrity, what does he have to say about people who grow organically for the sheer joy of it? There are hundreds of thousands of farmers who grow commercially, but just as many people who grow in their own gardens. What about people who belong to organic associations and want to carry on growing organic produce in their gardens?

Andrew George: That is a good point. I am not saying that commercial growers are the only people who should have a say. All those who are engaged in growing and have an interest of one type or anothernot merely a commercial interestshould have a say in the way in which policy is developed in the locality. I hope the Government will take that on board when they introduce measures to support the establishment of GM-free zones.
	On 9 March the Secretary of State said that Chardon LL maize could be grown only if it is
	managed as in the trials, or under such conditions as will not result in adverse effects on the environment.[Official Report, 9 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1382.]
	Although that has been put off as a result of the decision of a commercial company, so we are told, what conditions other than those in the trials would be deemed not to result in adverse effects on the environment, and who will take that decision?
	The Government will find themselves under a great deal of pressure following last week's announcement from the US Administration challenging the moratorium in the EU and threatening to impose a 1 billion fine on the EU for the moratorium. On 28 April 2004, an article in the Daily Mailnot my regular readstated:
	America opposes full labelling because it is concerned that once consumers know a product contains GM ingredients they will boycott it, so harming U.S. exports.
	The UK Government have an opportunity to show leadership both in Europe and in the US, and the criticisms that they have behaved like a poodle with regard to the US are possibly unfair. GM offers an admirable opportunity for the UK to use its strong and special relationship with the US to show not only that the UK is proceeding on the grounds of sound science and an appropriate moratorium, but that proper choice for consumers in purchasing or consuming any food product is of fundamental importance, and I hope that the Government argue strongly on that front.
	We cannot take future decisions at a speed that precludes a responsible and cautious approach. Decisions must clearly be based on sound science, and consumers must be presented with an informed choice. The Government must be congratulated on consulting the public and undertaking field-scale trials and scientific and commercial reviews.

Gregory Barker: Why must the Government be congratulated on consulting the public when they patently ignore what the public says? What is the point of such a consultation?

Andrew George: I am doing my very best to sugar the pill that I am offering the Minister on this issue. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have criticised the Government for mistiming the public consultation, which was concluded before the publication of essential science on which there should have been a public debate. I take his point that it is absurd to consult the public before the farm-scale trial evaluations report and before the commercial and scientific reports are produced. However, the Government have gone further than many of us expected, given that elements within the Government are more pro-science than the Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Gregory Barker: Pro-science?

Andrew George: I am sorry. I meant pro-GM.
	The Government must take it on board that in future they must gather the evidence and then consult not only the public but this House.

Michael Meacher: I begin by declaring an interest in an organic retail firm. I also pay tribute to the Environmental Audit Committee report, which was thoughtfulnot being a speed reader, I thought that it deserved more than one day's contemplation and that it should have been taken into account before decisions were made.
	Having listened to the debate, the central question is why the Government are so anxious to support GM in the face of all the pressures to the contrary. First, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the public do not want GM. If the Government want to restore trust, it does not help to have a nationwide consultation, find out that 85 per cent. of people do not want GM crops in this country and then proceed in the other direction. Secondly, the supermarkets will not stock it because there is no market in it.
	Thirdly, even the biotech companies are pulling out. I am referring not only to the withdrawal of Bayer CropScience from the Chardon LL application, but to other biotech companies pulling out even from research trials, which have slumped from 140 two years ago to 42 last year and just one this year.
	Fourthly, even farmers' initial enthusiasm has begun to wane. The claim that yields would increase and pesticide use would decrease has turned to dustliterally so in the case of the Argentine pampas to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) referred. That area, which contains a quarter of global GM production, now faces ecological catastrophe as a result of soil erosion. Charles Benbrook, the former head of the agricultural division of the US National Academy of SciencesI would regard that as a very reliable authorityhas found that over the past eight years pesticide use has increased by 50 million lb in the US, where two thirds of the world's GM crops are grown. I would say to my hon. Friend the Minister that that is despite what has happened in relation to herbicide-tolerant maize, and it is caused by volunteers, super-weeds and increasing resistance from new strains of weeds.
	Fifthly, even the Government's wider policies are incompatible with GM. In my view, their central agricultural policy, apart from getting rid of the common agricultural policy, is to generate sustainable agriculture in this countrythey are absolutely right to do soand to implement the excellent Curry report. That is not consistent with promoting GM, not least because of the high and increasing use of chemical pesticides. Moreover, the Governmentincluding, notably, the Prime Ministerhave repeatedly made it clear that they support a major extension of organic crops and have pledged themselves to more than double by 2010 the percentage of organic food that is consumed and has been cultivated in this country. That, too, is incompatible with GM, because cross-contamination by GM crops will wipe out the organic sector. There is no doubt that within the small confines of farming in this country that will happen, as it has on the Canadian prairies.
	Given all that, why are the Government still so hell-bent on GM, apart from the well known fact that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are so keen on it? The only answer appears to be

David Drew: My right hon. Friend did valuable work on this when he was Environment Minister. Does he agree that the most worrying aspect is that the companies are in a win-win situation, because as they supply the pesticides, they have a monopoly not only on the seeds but on the support that goes with them?

Michael Meacher: I am entirely aware of why the companies are in favour of GM. If one can monopolise the supply of seeds every year, as well as the pesticides that the seed is genetically engineered to resist, one has made it and the potential for an unprecedented bonanza opens up. However, I am talking about a completely different matter, namely the Government.
	The only answer to my question appears to be this: Ministers say that under EU law they cannot reject a crop unless it can be shown that it constitutes a risk to the environment or to human health, and the line is that that has not been demonstrated. In my view, that is the heart of the current contention over GM policy. Relatively little evidence is available to promote the conclusions because it has deliberately not been sought. However, even the little that exists is damning.
	The farm-scale evaluations, even with their narrow remit, for which I do not apologise, show that GM oilseed rape and beet are worse for the environment. I submit that the same would probably be true of maize if a less toxic herbicide than atrazine had been used on conventional maize. That will have to happen in future because of the EU ban. Of course, we now have the timebecause GM crops will not be planted in this country for several yearsto find out by replicating the trials.
	It is known from the chief scientific adviser's review panel report that, after GM crops have been sown, soil pollution can persist for up to 16 years before it is safe to plant conventional or organic crops. It is known that super-weeds and gene stacking generate huge and potentially long-term insuperable problems in north America. It is known that if farmers sought to maximise commercial yields, which they do in the real world by spraying more often or using stronger mixes, it would be bound to create substantial harm to the environment. Let us be frank: it is known that co-existence is impossible because no one can state a separation distance that guarantees the protection of conventional or organic crops from cross-contamination.
	If the Government were genuinely so minded, there is no doubt, at least in my mind, that the reasons that I have outlined are sufficient and consistent with EU and international law to reject GM crops because of their proven adverse impact on the environment. Those arguments could also be used in the case of the World Trade Organisation.
	The evidence for the impact on human health is slowly accumulating. In my view, there is already more than sufficient to argue the case on the precautionary principle, which is written into EU food law, that GM food should not be allowed to enter the human food chain until significant further research is done. My hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) said that there was no evidence of adverse effects on human health from eating GM foods. The reason for that is that no one has looked for them. I repeat the well known phrase that the absence of evidence does not represent evidence of absence. It is incredible but true that no peer-reviewed publications of clinical studies exist on the human health effects of GM food.
	However, we know that DNA recombination technology is inherently unstable and leads to substantial scrambling of foreign and host DNA at the sites of integration, with attendant unpredictable risks. We know that the much used cauliflower mosaic virus CaMV 35S promoter was widely incorporated into GM crops before its unsafe properties became known. It not only possesses a recombination hot spot, but it is promiscuously active in making genes over-express in species throughout the living world, including human cells.
	It is clear that the doctrine of substantial equivalence, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford eloquently referred and which was based on a highly prejudicial decision by the United States Department of Agriculture in 1994 and used thereafter as a device to circumvent direct trials of the effects of GM foods on human health, isI do not mince my wordsa scam. It should be dropped if any public trust in the process is to be secured.
	We also know that in the very few cases involving human or animal tests in which the results were seriously disturbing, the research was closed down and no further action was taken. My hon. Friend referred to some of those cases. In the Newcastle study, in which a sample was fed a single meal of GM soya, the GM DNA survived almost intact and transferred to the gut bacteria, which could compromise antibiotic resistance. The Pusztai study found that GM potatoes with snowdrop lectin damaged every organ system of rats, resulting especially in a thickening of the stomach lining, which could beI say only could bea precursor of cancer. My hon. Friend also referred to the case in which a dozen dairy cows died on a farm in Hesse in north Germany after eating Syngenta's Bt 176 maize. Syngenta paid the farmer compensation, which might be taken as admitting liability.
	The most worrying thing is that, in all those cases, the results were simply rubbished by the scientific establishment as flawed, and none was ever followed upas normally happens in the scientific worldwith further tests to confirm or refute the original findings. In other words, there was a preference for personality vilification rather than genuine scientific inquiry, and I greatly deplore that. All that that succeeds in doing is giving the impression that there is something to hide. I have to say to my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government have given that impression through their handling of the Chardon LL maize research at Reading university.
	What we do know is that GM maize from the FSE trials was removed secretly at night two years ago, to be used as cattle feed and to test the effects on the cows. We were told at the time that the results would be published, peer reviewed and presented to the regulatory authorities. Two years on, none of that has happened. Why? The strong suspicion is that the results were so unpalatable to the GM industry that they were suppressed. When are the Government going to give us the results of those tests and get them peer reviewed

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's time is up. I call Mr. Peter Ainsworth.

Peter Ainsworth: It is a great privilege and a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), who knows more about these things than anyone in the House. He was good enough to give evidence to our Select Committee and he was, of course, intimately involved in setting up the farm-scale trials in the first place.
	The Minister was very interested in the report of the Environmental Audit Committeenot only the one that we published in March but the one that we attached to the Government's response to that reportand he spoke at length about it. I hope that the House will forgive me if I risk creating a rather anoraky and dislocated debate by replying to some of the points that he raised, and by focusing on the Committee's work, rather than dealing with some of the other very important issues, such as those raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on human health. I want to do that not because I am interested in rehearsing old arguments; I want to make new arguments. I should make it clear, however, that I stand by every word of the Committee's report.
	I want to engage in this debate because I believe that the disputeand it is a disputethat our Select Committee has with the Government over this issue sheds some interesting light on the Government's whole approach to GM crops. Their attitude towards this issue is very curious, even perverse. It has already been pointed out today that the statement made by the Secretary of State on 9 March about GM maize flew in the face of public opinion. It was contentious and unpopular. I am all in favour of the Government making contentious and unpopular statements, and they are getting rather experienced at doing so, but I do not understand a Secretary of State making such a statement when there is no need to do so. As the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton said, there is no market for these GM crops, and there was no need to make that statement at the time that it was made. The subsequent action by Bayer CropScience suggested that that was certainly the case. So we now have a ludicrous situation in which the Government appear to be more keen on GM crops than the GM industry itself. It is a preposterous state of affairs.
	I accept that the Government went to great lengths to set up a rational process for evaluating the benefits or otherwise of GM crops. I commend them on that. The farm-scale evaluations were just one of a series of measures to which the Minister referred earlier, including the science review, the cost-benefit review, the report on co-existence and liability, and the GM Nation? debate. The problem is that the science review highlighted gaps in the science and public concerns about the technology, the cost-benefit review indicated no significant economic benefit to UK agriculture, the co-existence and liability review did not resolve the issues of co-existence and liability, as we have heard this afternoon, and the GM Nation? debate resulted in an overwhelmingly negative response from the British people. The farm-scale trials were, in the opinion of the Environmental Audit Committee, equivocal and flawed in their outcome and very narrow in their scope.
	The Minister seemed to be implying this afternoon that the Committee was hostile to the science. We are not hostile to the science or critical of the work that the scientists did. We merely differ from the Government in interpreting the results of that science. Put simply, as a result of the problems with atrazine, we still do not know whether GMHT maize, if grown commercially in the UK, would be better or worse for biodiversity than conventional maize. That is the situation in a nutshell.

Gregory Barker: Does my hon. Friend also agree that the benchmark against which such GM crops were judged was conventional farming, which over recent years has been bad for biodiversity? We ought to be aiming for a much higher benchmark of biodiversity in the British countryside than the low level to which it has fallen in recent years.

Peter Ainsworth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and he will find that I am coming to exactly that point.
	When the Environmental Audit Committee published its report on the farm-scale evaluations on 5 March, we asked the Governmentpolitely, I hopeto consider it carefully before using the trials as a basis for allowing commercial growing of GM crops. The Secretary of State's answer to that request was to make her statement four days later, as we have heard. The Government then justified ignoring our advice on the grounds that our report contained nothing new. They repeated that claim in their response to the Committee's report published today, and the Minister repeated it again in the Chamber. That is the first of many specious and misleading claims made by the Government about that report.
	The report and its contents were only not new in the sense that hardly any Select Committee reports contain new information. We set out not to create new science, as the Minister seems to want to imply, but to analyse existing science, to take evidence from those who had been involved in that work, to draw conclusions, and to make recommendations as a Select Committee. Our recommendations were new, of course, and it was discourteous to the House that the Government brushed them aside with such haste. That raises much bigger questions about the relationship between the Government and Select Committees, but now is not the time to debate that.
	I must also say, although the Minister rejected the claim earlier, that the Government have been guilty in their response to the report of either wilfully or carelessly misinterpreting the advice offered by my Committee. I will give him some examples. In their response, the Government seek to imply that we recommended that the benchmark for better biodiversity, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) just mentioned, should be set higher for GM crops than for conventional crops. We did not. What we said was that if we are to halt the years of disastrous decline in biodiversity in this country, the benchmark for all agriculture should be higher.
	The Government go on to say that we failed to take oral evidence from the research consortium that did the groundwork on the trials, and that that constitutes a serious weakness. First, the consortium could have submitted more than one and a half sides of un-illuminating A4 material in written evidence; secondly, the research consortium was not in charge of the design of the trialsthe scientific steering committee was. Of course we took evidence from its chairman, and based some of our conclusions on that evidence. Later, incidentally, we learned from an article in The Guardian that the chairman of the scientific steering committee was a passionate proponent of GM technology. That might raise questions in some people's minds about his appropriateness for the job, and about the independence that he brought to it.
	Next, the Government take us to task for taking evidence from the Canadian National Farmers Union, because it has such a small membership. That is a trivial point, given that the ecological problems caused by GM crops in north America are so well documented and so well known. We have heard this afternoon about the problems caused by super-weeds, extra herbicide applications and so forth.
	The Government then assert that the high proportion of GM maize and rape grown in north America, relative to conventional maize and rape growing, suggests that there are commercial benefits. I suggest that it might mean something completely different. It might reflect the fact that, as the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton and others have pointed out, this technology gets everywhere. It might reflect the fact that it is no longer possible to grow some organic crops in this environment because the GM technology has got out of control.

Roger Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Ainsworth: I do not have enough time.
	In any case, we were not concerned with commercial benefits at that stage of our discussions. We were concerned with the ecological damage that was being witnessed in north America. Either deliberately or otherwise, the Government missed the point of that argument. I hope that the House is beginning to understand what I meant when I used the phrase wilfully or carelessly misinterpreting.
	There are also sins of omission. The Committee was particularly anxious for a robust regime to be established to cover liability. The Government's response ignores that altogether. I know that the Minister has said things about it today, but why did he not take the opportunity, when responding to our report, to make the Government's position clear? He did not refer to it at all.
	The present situation is this: the industry has said that it will not pay, and the Government have said that they will not finance compensation if things go wrong. Organic and conventional farmers, and distributors and food manufacturers, will be left completely exposed if the technology is commercialised and if anything goes wrong with it. Fortunately, because of the delaybecause the industry has temporarily thrown in the towelthere is still time to put this right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle has suggested.
	It is true that I am personally disappointed that what I hope can be seen as a thoughtful and serious report, running to 250 pages, has been met by a nine-page wonder of tendentious denial and evasion; but I am not motivated by sour grapes, or by a sense of hurt pride on behalf of the EAC. I have raised these criticisms and concerns, and will continue to do so, because I believe that the curious Government response to the GM debate is symptomatic of a wider attitude in some powerful quarters of the scientific establishment, whichalasappears to include the Royal Society. That attitude is unscientifically based on the ruling hypothesis that GM crops are an unequivocal benefit to mankind. The Minister may not believe that, but it seems to me that people in government in very senior positions are approaching the debate from that angle.
	There is no evidence that that hypothesis is correct. Significant doubts remain. Much more work needs to be done. The public are not satisfied. The debate will go on, however hard the Government try to close it down and however many genetically modified raspberries they, the Royal Society or anyone else may blow at public opinion.

Ian Gibson: It is a delight to be back in the bear garden with my right hon. and hon. Friends to discuss this issue. I do not know how many times we have discussed it, but it certainly does not go away. Nothing will take away the euphoria that I feel today, not only because of the Government's attitude to this thorny problem but because Norwich City has reached premier status again and will stay there. That makes me feel good.
	We have in Norwich the John Innes institute, a world-class centre not only for GM technology but for conventional plant breeding. I should declare an interest, although I have not worked in the GM field, because I worked with those technologies in the cancer field. Of course we collaborated and talked about technologies, and I knew of the institute's good work in developing vaccines in plants and its studies in the rice genome, which I think will help plant breeding in the developing world. I should also declare that I am a non-remuneratednot even in GM carrotsboard member of the Institute of Food Research, which does excellent work in examining the effects on people's health and on food.
	The point has often been made here that genetically modified crops are being grown extensively in north and south America and in China, although not in Europe. They have in a sense become part of the normal diet in those places, if not in Europe, where there is still contention, despite the fact that 300 million US citizens continue to eat GM soya without any ill effects in a very litigious society, and many Europeans, including people here, have eaten it while in the US, with no adverse consequences.

Joan Ruddock: I wonder how my hon. Friend thinks it would be possible for Americans to know whether they had a health problem related to GM food, when GM and non-GM foods are completely mixed and those people are not conscious of what they are eating.

Ian Gibson: The epidemiology studies carried out in every major centre, including universities in the United States and elsewhere, into the effects of the food, and some experiments in that field, have shown no effects whatever that correlate with the foodalthough I understand how difficult that is to prove. I do not think that it is incumbent on me to prove that GM food is safe; the people who say that it is unsafe have to prove that. The benefits that GM has given to people, such as the provision of cheap GM soya, have been to the great advantage of the food industry and the people who live in those countries.
	Our Government, too, have done study after study, with chief scientific advisers and others examining the issue. The scientific, social and ethical issues have also been examined by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which has said that
	there is an ethical obligation to explore these potential benefits responsibly, in order to contribute to the reduction of poverty and to improve food security and profitable agriculture in developing countries.
	That council says that GM food might not be the entire answerit does not pretend that it isbut that it cannot be ruled out as part and parcel of our support for a developing world in which people are starving, and need food and help with their agricultural development.
	The British Medical Association, too, has made robust submissions that there is no evidence that the foods are unsafe. It seems to me that the evidence is piling up to say that the food is, indeed, safe. I should like to see the real evidence from the other side. Although I do not have the time to do so now, I am quite prepared to take my right hon. and hon. Friends for a GM-free lunch to discuss the evidence that they put forward. I think that I can decimate it. I think that I can make arguments against every single, little experiment that they put forward and give another explanation, although I agree that more work needs to be done.
	The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made it quite clear:
	There is no scientific case for a blanket approval of all the uses of GM,
	but
	Equally, there is no scientific case for a blanket ban on the use of GM.[Official Report, 9 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1383.]
	Recognising that people believe that the use of genetic modification should be approached with caution, the Government want regulation and monitoring. Some people want a framework of rules for the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops, and many want a clear regime of traceability and labelling so that they can make their own choices. The Minister offered us all that earlier today, which would seem to meet the demands of the public. Even while the Minister and the Secretary of State were saying that, The Mail on Sunday was publishing an article under the headline, How I proved that GM crops poisoned an entire village, in which a so-called leading expert in GM crops, Professor Traavik,
	warned of potential catastrophe if GM crops are used in Britain and claimed an entire village in the Philippines was poisoned by American GM crops.
	My hon. Friends will know that that has been seriously disputed.
	Let us consider some of the other things that the media have said throughout this tortuous debatenearly every newspaper has made some comment. Headlines include, Are we at risk from mutant make-up?, GM crops linked to meningitis, Lifting the lid on the horror of GM foods, Mutant porkies on the menu, GM risk in daily food of millions, GM food 'threatens the planet', Meat may be tainted by Frankenstein food, MS sells genetically modified Frankenpantsthat was from that classic newspaper, The Independent on SundayIs GM the new thalidomide?, and so on. There has been a concerted media campaign to convey such a view of GM foods, and it obviously has an effect on people.
	Mention has been made of Professor Pusztai, who gave evidence to the Select Committee that I now chair and of which I was a member of in the previous Parliament. He told us that feeding rats with genetically modified potatoes caused them damage. His work eventually appeared in a peer review journal, which is fine, but it first appeared in newspapers and television shows. There is no evidence that his results can be repeated. I can cite times and places where people have tried to repeat the experiments and have not had the same results. The essence of science is to be able to repeat experiments in different labs at different times, perhaps under different conditions, and get the same results.
	The scientific community is almost unanimous in support, but the public debate reflects uncertainty. We must ask why the British public are sceptical. I do not want to go into all the questionnaires and so on. Even for someone who is a member of the Committee on the Public Understanding of Science and has worked with the Royal Society and others, it is very difficult to find out what the public, or different publics, really think. In fact, the activism has not been public-led; it has been provoked by newspapers, and people have responded by becoming sceptical. People take a precautionary approach because it is the easiest route to take when there are suspicions around.
	The scientists have not been brilliant; their arrogance sometimes shines through. I have no support for the arrogance of establishment scientists. We must admit it when we are wrong or when we do not know, and we must consider what we need to do to find out. It is ironic that, over 50 or 60 years, plant breeders have used chemical and radiation mutagenesis to create new varieties, with new modifications and genes leaping about and joining together, with no protest. We must ask why there was no protest then, but there is protest now.

Roger Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the plant varieties that have been bred are varieties used by organic farmers?

Ian Gibson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but it is not true that those varieties are all used by organic farmers. There are other problems with organic crops in terms of some of the chemicals that are used on them, but that has been well documented.
	The public and scientists have a different concept of risk. The public react to risk in very unpredictable wayssmoking is an exampleand the scientists sometimes demonstrate arrogance and are too assured about new technologies. That must sometimes be challenged, and it is challenged by the scientific community, but less so by the public.
	People also worry about what is natural. It is often said that something is not natural, not right, not the way it should be. His Royal HighnessI think I can say this without riskobjected to
	taking into the realm of man what rightly belongs in the realm of God.
	For him and others, genetic modification is seen as unnatural, articulating a romantic view of nature that sees everything natural as good and anything tampered with by humans as bad. Many people's views do not reflect that view. Scientists do not regard GM as unnatural, but some practices are certainly unethical. Of course, not everything that is possible should be done, although we might disagree on where the line should be drawn. We have to think through the issues and explain how awe, wonder and understanding are part of a scientific reaction to the world around us. But as stewards of the planet, we also have a responsibility to recognise that change is necessary if we are to feed a bourgeoning world population, for example.
	The media have a huge effect on people's views, but pressure groups also have a responsibility in this regard. I do not want to talk about my ex-friend Lord Melchett and some of the irresponsible things that he did in Norfolk, such as trampling fields of GM crops. He was taken to court but got away with it on the basis that he was defending the planet. Various arguments can be advanced on that issue.
	We need to think about scientists' responsibilities, and although pressure groups have every right to object to GM crops, they, too, must consider their responsibilities. When they lose an argument, they must not jump from issue to issue simply in order to win the day. We all have a responsibility to work together. Scientists need to come out of their ivory towers and talk to religious groups and others. We need to form communities who ask questions, but not in the spirit of confrontation and polarisation that, sadly, marks the current debate. Debate must be truly effective, and we must share ideas. By all means let us disagree, but if we are to make progress we must ask the necessary questions and carry out the necessary experiments.
	If anything, the Government have been too soft on this issue; that is the only reason to admonish them. They should have taken a much harder line, rather than listening to 0.00035 per cent. of the population. The science is on their side, and they should go with it.

Gregory Barker: The last time that I discussed this subject in the Chamber, I had my parliamentary legs shot away by the hard men of the Labour Whips Office. I hope that they will be a little kinder to me this afternoon.
	Today, the Environmental Audit Committee published an excellent rebuttal of the Government's response to our own report. In that regard, I pay particular tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), who pulled out all the stops.
	I want to focus my remarks on the twin issues of contamination and liability. They were at the heart of the ill-fated private Member's Bill that I endeavoured to introduce recently, but which will be read again on 12 May. I shall preface my remarks by echoing the points made by the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher). Many of my own constituents constantly ask me the very questions that he raised. Why are the Government so determined to rush ahead with the promotion of GM crops before they have had the chance fully to evaluate the science and the real long-term impactnot the three-year impactof this new technology on public health and biodiversity? Why the rush? Why the extraordinary zeal to promote the interests of GM producers? Why the determination to consider only the science that seems to favour their own predetermined ideas? This agenda is undoubtedly being driven by No. 10 Downing streetperhaps the Minister will tell us today what super-Blairite thinking lies behind this boundless enthusiasm for GM crops. I look forward to being enlightened.
	Why the reluctance to listen to the general public's concerns about GM technology? This is not just a rural or farming issue; it has gained traction with a broad section of the electorate throughout the country. There is a great deal of interest in this issue in rural Sussex constituencies such as mine, but also in constituencies such as Brighton, Pavilion. Mike Weatherley, the Conservative candidate for that constituency, has been campaigning hard against this Government's drive to force GM crops on to British consumers. He speaks for ordinary consumers, but whatever view one takes

Elliot Morley: I really do not know why the hon. Gentleman keeps claiming that the Government are promoting GM crops and forcing them on consumers. For goodness' sake, we have had years and years of evaluation and research, which ended with two applications being rejected and one being approved only with conditionsit was on a time limit and has subsequently been withdrawn. It is the present Government who put in place and supported measures for consumer choice. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that when the Conservative Government approved GM soya, they did nothing about labelling and traceability, which were introduced only in 1999 under the present Administration.

Gregory Barker: First, may I say how delighted I am to see the Minister here today? I am only sorry that he was not here when I last spoke in connection with my Bill. I am glad that he has taken the opportunity to speak today. There is no rush and no haste. Why not wait for the fourth trial to be completed and for the atrazine trials to be restarted? Public opinion is seriously puzzled by the agenda that emanates from we know not where.

Elliot Morley: indicated dissent.

Gregory Barker: Whatever side of the GM argument hon. Members are on, the whole House should be able to agree on two principles. The first is that people should be free to choose whether they wish to take the risk of using or consuming new products or new technologies, such as GM crops and GM ingredients. The second is that the manufacturers and producers introducing the new technology should be held responsible and be required to pay damages if their GM products prove harmful to the environment or cause damage to the health or livelihoods of others. Those are basic principles, and I do not believe that there is a real division among us about them.
	On the first principle of allowing people to choose to avoid GM, although we already have some GM labelling to assist people, as other hon. Members have highlighted, there are flaws in the system. Even if it were made perfect, there would be a limit on what could be achieved through labelling alone. The problem is that all crop seeds have the potential to mix with other varieties, and GM crops are no different. Cross-pollination can arise easily in many wayseither deliberately or inadvertently by humans or animals carrying the seeds. The problem is that if GM and non-GM crops mix, it may not be possible for consumers who wish to avoid GM to buy GM-free products.
	There are many such consumers. The Government's GM Nation? debate found that 86 per cent. of respondents did not want to eat GM products. British retailers have, of course, long recognised that. None of the major supermarkets today willingly stock GM food, but on that issue, the Government seem determined to ignore what the market has made abundantly clear. Right or wrong, whatever the evidence, the British consumer does not want to eat GM food. To preserve the choice that so many of our constituents clearly want, we must prevent the contamination of non-GM crops with GM traits. That requires GM crops being planted according to stringent rules governing separation distances and planting intervals, and strict hygiene regulations.
	We can always debate the detail of such rules, but the basic principle should be that they are decided on a scientific basis to prevent contamination. When I say scientific basis, I do not mean something done on the back of one paper or another; I mean making the rules after a considered and impartial judgment of all the relevant science in the area and scrutinising the rules rigorously.
	Having met the Minister to discuss my Bill, I know that the Government pretty much share my analysis so far. However, I have been alarmed at the fact that they have been strangely reluctant to take the next logical step in the argument, which is recognition that appropriate rules must be in place before any more GM crops are planted. After all, there is little point in putting rules in place after they are plantedhorses and stable doors spring to mind. I shall return to the Government's position after outlining the second of the two important principlesthat of liability.
	If GM crops lead to problems or cause harm to a person or to the environment, we must have confidence that damages can be reclaimed from the people who have developed the products. At present, if a farmer found that his crop contained GM plants mixed in among the non-GM crop that he planted, it is likely that the person he planned to sell it to would refuse to buy it. With no major food retailers selling GM food, there is unlikely to be much of a market for a contaminated crop. Indeed, the farmer would himself be liable. He would therefore be left seriously out of pocket, and possibly faced with going busteven more so if he were an organic farmer. Such a producer must be entitled to recompense from the person who caused his crop to become worthless, yet current UK law offers little hope that he would win redress.
	Current options for claiming damages rely on case law and nuisance. To secure compensation, the victims of economic harm caused by GMOs would have to prove which of their neighbours was responsible. If there are several local plantings of GM crops, proving the source may be well nigh impossible.
	I understand that the Minister broadly agrees with me, and I am sorry that he is not really listening. When he wrote to me, he said that he would listen.
	I am also pleased that the Government have ruled out one solution to this problem: that the taxpayer should pay compensation. Even the Government accept that that is a no-no. However, as with the first principle, there is a difference between the Minister's position and mine, and it comes down to timing. It is unacceptable to allow GM crops to be planted before liability rules are in place. Again, there has been hesitancy on the part of the Government to agree.
	I shall explain that in more detail. In both February and March, I tabled parliamentary questions asking the Secretary of State if she would make it her policy to ensure that liability and contamination rules were in place before any GM crops were planted. On both occasions, I was told that the Government were considering the report that they had received from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, and that they would make an announcement in due course.
	When the GM policy statement was made earlier this month, I studied both it and the subsequent debate carefully. The Secretary of State was asked several times about the timing of liability and coexistence rules, and about when rules would be put in place to prevent GM crops adversely affecting organic and other conventional, non-GM farmers. On each occasion, she said that she anticipated that the rules would be in place before any planting happened.
	The word anticipated appeared to have been very carefully chosen.

Roger Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that co-existence rules would have to be different for each variety of plant? Beet is a biennial crop that is harvested in its first year, so it never comes to flower and does not contaminate other plants. Also, very few organic growers grow forage maize.

Gregory Barker: That is a fair point. The rules must be different for every variety, but it is possible that some varieties can co-exist in the UK without damaging the environment.
	I tabled yet another parliamentary question after the statement. I was pleased to see that the language in the response had toughened up slightly. The Minister for the Environment told me that he now intended that rules would be in place first.
	It can sometimes seem very much like nit-picking when one digs deep into the words used by Ministers, but it is important to do so. In my experience, Ministers and civil servants usually choose their words carefully and speak precisely. The fact that the words anticipate and intend fall well short of the word guaranteethe one that I was afterseriously worries me. However, even if we give the Minister the benefit of the doubt, we must ask how the rules would be introduced.
	I understand that the Minister believes that regulations made under various existing pieces of environmental legislation will cover planting rules, but what level of security and amendment is likely to be given to regulations made under an Act that certainly was not written to cover the many problems specific to GM crops? How will our constituents have their concerns voiced in the debates on these crucial matters?
	On liability, the position is even less clear. I understand that there is no power to make the necessary regulations to determine a liability regime, so when will we see legislation? I appreciate that the Minister will direct me to the consultation on these matters that the Government have announced. Responses to that will no doubt assist Ministers in drawing up the detail of rules, but legislation must be scrutinised here, on the Floor of the House of Commons, and in the devolved Assemblies. The process must guarantee that that happens before GM crops are planted.
	My private Member's Bill would guarantee that legal, enforceable rules to prevent contamination and to determine liability were fully debated and approved by elected politicians, and were in place before any GM crops were planted. It does not specify the rules, or in any way interfere with or pre-empt the Minister's planned consultation. Even a Minister starting out with every intention to put rules in place before further planting will find those intentions strained, if drawing up the rules proves difficult[Interruption.] I am sorry that the Minister for the Environment has chosen to leave the Front Bench and go and chat to the civil servants. That is extraordinary and unfortunate, given the exchanges that we have had.

Alun Michael: Don't be childish!

Gregory Barker: I am also sorry about the extraordinary remarks from the other Minister, because we were trying to have a sensible debate.
	The pressure to allow planting will build up again, and Ministersperhaps not this Minister for the Environment, but his successormay be tempted to allow planting under the voluntary codes that governed the crop trials, in the hope that nothing goes wrong and the gap in the liability regime is not exposed. That simply cannot be allowed to happen.
	The Minister for the Environment was not present, for whatever reason, when my GM Bill received its First Reading last month. However, he is here today and I hope that the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environment Quality, when he winds up, will respond to my arguments and specifically inform us whether the Government will oppose my Bill when it returns to the House on 12 May. There is an opportunity here to build a consensus

Elliot Morley: Not with you, there isn't.

Gregory Barker: The Minister scoffs at that suggestion, and that is genuinely sad. There is some willingness on both sides of the House to try to find some common ground on the issues of liability and contamination. I am sorry that the Minister does not appear interested in taking up that offer.

Alan Simpson: Just under a week ago, I was privileged to chair a seminar in Westminster Hall that sought to address the question of whether GM crops are safe for the environment or for animal or human consumption. We had a distinguished panel of speakers that morning, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher). Most of the other contributors had already conducted detailed research into genetic engineering.
	The seminar was driven by scientists and was pro-science. The purpose was to raise a series of scientific questions that required society to engage with the revolutionary nature of the technology with which we have been confronted. I suspect that many of those scientists would endorse some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) about the character of the debate so far. My hon. Friend was right to say that at times it has descended into caricature.
	We need to remember, however, that at the start we were not invited to take part in a debate at all. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton, a former Minister for the Environment, will know better than most that the pressure from the biotech corporations was for no labelling, no debate, no field or farm trials and no constraints on the instant issuing of the consents that they sought.
	The claims that were presented to Parliament fell into the same category of criticism that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North set out. We were presented with some dreadfully fraudulent arguments for the rapid approval of GM crop planting. We were first offered the absurd doctrine of substantial equivalence, which was an insult to science. GM crops were presented as little more than novel cake decorations. Whatever else one may think of GM crops, the science behind them offers a revolutionary breakthrough. It allows science to cross species barriers on a scale and in ways that we have never been able to do before. However, the least that we owe society is to place the science of scrutiny alongside the science of possibility, and that is what we have not so far done.
	The scientists who spoke to Members who turned up at the seminar last week made the case for a Government lead in defining a new science of scrutiny, and the whole House should take that message seriously. I invite the Minister to listen to it and to give the scientific lead for which they were asking.
	Many of those scientists were much more enthusiastic about what they saw as the second generation of biotechnology, which will involve the ability to alter existing gene sequencesto make alterations within a given gene sequencerather than to play fast and loose by taking genes from one sequence and inserting them in another. They told us that the current science of genetic engineering is either flawed or unexplored and that we need new constraints on what we are willing to tolerate outside strict laboratory conditions.
	The scientists effectively abolished the other big fib that was foisted on Parliament: the notion that even if we do not like GM foodif the public do not want to buy it, the supermarkets do not want to sell it and the insurance companies will not insure the cropswe ought to license GM crops because they will feed the developing world.
	A series of reports from Third World Network showed how country after country in the developing world is finding that GM is a complete scam. They are offered a short-term boost in production in exchange for the surrender of their right to save seed. The consequences for the environment are long-term devastation, while those for human health are unknown. The voices of the poor are asking us to enforce the precautionary principle. Many of them are saying, Give us other choices about the crops we grow and the ability to use the resources that nature provides us with and we won't need that technology. And nor do we in this country.
	We are not faced with food shortages that require us to take that enormous leap of faith. What we face is the requirement to engage with the problem and set the grounds for a different basis for the science of scrutiny. The urgency is beginning to percolate through. Last year, scientists in France undertook a re-evaluation of five of the GM crops that had received approval. They found that the inserted genes had changed their character. The genes were occurring in a different place in the Bt crop and they had changed their character. The instability of those inserted and constructed genes gave rise to enormous concern among French scientists.
	The French scientists asked for fresh, rigorous trials, as was the case in the problem of the cows that died in Germany. Some of my hon. Friends have pointed out that Syngenta paid compensation in that case, but the scientists were asking for new rigorous trials into the cause of death of those cows. Only one cow was examined, yet 12 had diedfrom whatever causeand more had to be slaughtered owing to unexplained illnesses. The scientists wanted rigorous testing of all those animals to find the cause of death. Instead, the company withdrew the Bt 176 maize from use.

Elliot Morley: I may be able to help my hon. Friend. We asked the German authorities for their opinion on the incident and they told us that the death of the cows was not linked to Bt maize and that a similar number of cows died in almost identical circumstances in the following year, when Bt forage was no longer being used. The German authorities concluded that the cause of death was botulism.

Alan Simpson: The Spanish authorities reviewed that evidence and made an appraisal of their consents for Bt 176 maize, which had received commercial consent in Spain, and they have now withdrawn that consent. I cite that example in respect of the death of the cows in Germany not because I was looking for an opinion but because I was looking for a scientific appraisal based on more than one bloody cow. That is not a decent basis for scientific scrutiny; it is not good science, and that is the platform on which we must insist that the Government and this country proceed.
	Members have mentioned the problems of the villagers in the Philippines, 100 of whom became seriously ill with debilitating illnesses in the midst of the GM maize area. The research conducted by Professor Traavik identified that 39 of those villagers carried in their blood antibodies to the Bt biopesticide in the GM maize. I am not asking that we necessarily accept such things; I am saying that we must insist on the replication of tests where concerns arise, but we have not had that. All the mention of the Pusztai experiments has not resulted in a replication of the studies that he conducted; nor of those conducted by the authorities in Egypt that found similar problems with gastrointestinal infections in the mice that ate GM potatoes.
	I am not saying, Shock, horror! We must ban it! or that we should vilify the scientists who have raised those concerns. All I am saying is that good science proceeds on the basis of replicating the research and subjecting it to rigorous study. We have to demand more tests. There is no demand for consents. Our starting position is that we must say, No, we can't proceed on a case-by-case basis because we don't have the science to make the decisions. We have to move beyond the benchmarking of substantial equivalence to the testing of transgenes and their toxins.
	One of the scientists told me that substantial equivalence is really daft. If two cows are standing side by sideone has BSE and the other has notit could be said that they are substantially equivalent. How would we know that they are different? We would conduct tests on the cow with BSE. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who suggested that we should test the genetic modifications, rather than the things with genetic modifications. We should move to direct scrutiny, rather than indirect reference pointing.
	On the liability regime, I do not believe that co-existence will be possible. In truth, I have never understood the concept of being a little bit pregnant. A little bit of contamination will make a product contaminated and unsaleable, and it will threaten to destroy the basis of our organic farming and the non-GM products that fetch a premium in the marketplace because they are what consumers want. What will separate out those things is making the producers of the crops liable for the contamination or the damage that they may cause. That is why the industry is running from that process.
	How do we fund independent research? It is straightforward; we tell companies, Fine, you seek approvals and produce the GM crops that you want, and then we as a Government will institute independent scientific scrutiny and we'll send you the bill. The costs would be fully recovered from the companies that wanted the consents, but the science would not be dependent on the evidence that the companies chose to release.
	The reality is that the GM issue has never been about feeding the world, but about who owns the food chain. The companies that are pushing GM through are down to their last card: contaminate or bustin fact, contaminate or they go bustand we will see quite unscrupulous efforts to compromise the food chain and our environmental systems, so that people can throw up their hands and say, You may have been right, but it is out there now: the damage is done and we must make the best of it. We are still able to make a choice: we can still say no, and the best way to say no is for the Government to give a lead in defining a different base on which we can establish the science of good scrutiny.

Sue Doughty: I am glad to have been called in this debate, rather than the one earlier this afternoon. I add my support for the report produced by the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I serve, and for the comments of our Chairman, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth). We need to take a wider view of the scienceit is not a question of being pro or anti-science. Generally, I am against GM, but in deciding whether it is right or wrong, people should not jump to conclusions. We need to know much more. I am worried about the risks, and science should identify what they are.
	I congratulate the Government on the fact that they carried out those trialsit would be wrong not to give them credit for the care that they took over them. The Committee rightly made criticisms of the trials, but our Government have gone much further than other Governments. We believe that lessons were learned from that experience but, in a supportive manner, we believe that there is more that we need to look at. The trials were a step on the road and not, unfortunately, an end in themselves. There has been endless procrastination, with one test after another, and we need to understand why the Government are so uncertain about the technology. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) spoke eloquently about his research and the reason why he was so uncertain about the technology. We are not saying, We are agin science. We are not. One of the major companies in the field is based in my constituency, which is also home to a leading technological university that does wonderful science. Whenever I visit, I never fail to be impressed by the quality of its work and the things that it invents and discovers.
	The problem is what we do with those inventions and developments and how we use them. I support the precautionary principle and do not believe that we should let the genie out of the bottle until we have a clearer view of the technology. Part of our debate has focused on the trials at Reading university, in which cattle were fed on Chardon LL maize. The mortality rate of chickens that were subsequently fed on GM maize was twice that of the control group. We need to know more about the effects of GM and its impact on the food chain as a whole. It is not a question of someone asking, If I eat GM maize, do I get a cold next week? We need to consider what will happen to our children. At my age, I will almost certainly not have any more children, but we must consider the impact on future generations. In America, people are not yet in a position to see the impact of GM on their descendants, but we already have enough information to see what is happening in other species, and to consider whether those developments were intentional. Are we managing the consequences and do we understand the risks, or are unexpected events occurring? Are we testing for a frequent incidence of such events?
	Science should increase our understanding of the issue. It is valid for people to ask whether we could use GM to improve and increase food stocks. There is a commercial benefit in the technology, which is why people are investing in it. But for what purposes should we use it? In our report, we were concerned that crops in the trials were not grown for maximum yield. Any self-respecting farmer, particularly in the current economic climate, grows crops for maximum yield and uses maximum product, but in the trials, farmers were told that they should not aim to achieve maximum yields and should not use herbicide as often as they would like. The technology was not tested in the context in which it would be used.
	We have heard many reasons why people would like to take the technology further. We should take up the points made in the debate today and consider what else we could do instead of using GM crops, particularly internationally, to improve food production and to invest in peace. Better trading conditions would produce many benefits in terms of food. There must be much wider scientific testing of the impact of all the aspects that we have heard about today.
	I shall close my remarks by expressing the hope that before we go further in the real world, the Government will take on board the fact that we have undertaken only half or perhaps only a quarter of the tests on GM products that are needed.

Alun Michael: Like the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), I believe that in a debate such as this it is the responsibility of the House to consider the public interest, to examine the evidence and to inform public opinion as well as other hon. Members. Perhaps there is more agreement than has been suggested in the course of the debate, as hon. Members try to be careful and precautionary.
	I understand that the House is naturally concerned that the Government might go too far or that decisions might be taken from which it is difficult to come back. However, there has been more agreement among hon. Members in this debate than in some previous debates on the issue. Most of today's debate has been mature and reasonable in tone, although not all the opinions expressed have been as carefully rooted in the evidence and in the science as the opening speech from my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and the robust but fair contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson).
	It was disappointing that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) seemed to visit us briefly from another planet to talk childishly about rush and hassle, when my hon. Friend the Minister made it clear in his introduction that we have no intention of rushing and that we have taken a precautionary approach in these matters. My hon. Friend stressed in his introduction that we have looked deliberately for adverse health effects. While keeping an open mind, we cannot ignore the lack of negative evidence. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House would share my respect for the integrity that my hon. Friend brings to bear on his portfolio in general, and on this issue in particular.
	We need to keep a sense of proportion. We should remember that a limited number of GM foods were authorised under the European Union arrangements in 1996, when the Conservatives were in office. In the interests of balance, I should mention that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) gave UK support for three separate EU authorisations in 1998 for different types of GM maize. That is why the views that he expressed with such passion in the Chamber today seem a little tendentious to Ministers who are trying to deal with these issues now.
	After a little introductory knock-about the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) made two important points about the need to take a science-based approach and to recognise that modification of crops and foodstuffs is not new. I agree with him on that point. We ought to take an objective science-based approach to the subject of GM foods, as to every issue that the public expect the House to deal with responsibly and carefully. I do not think that the public are too surprised if there is an extreme style of debate in the tabloids, for instance, but they expect better from Members of Parliament. Respect for the House is not necessarily helped when an august and expert organisation such as the Royal Society rightly demands that misleading criticisms, not from a tabloid newspaper, but from a Committee of the House, be withdrawn.
	In the light of the comments of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, I was surprised that he did not make more reference to the views of the Royal Society that were set out today. Lord May, the president of the Royal Society, said:
	I have expressed my disappointment to the Committee that they have still not publicly withdrawn their misleading criticism of the journal papers about GM farm trials. The Committee's statement, about 'significant doubt as to the robustness, validity and relevance' of the results of the farm scale evaluations, was both inaccurate and damaging. The papers describing the results of the trials were subjected to a rigorous independent peer review before publication in the journal.
	Lord May also said:
	The Committee did not place enough weight on scientific information that has been subjected to peer review.

Peter Ainsworth: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: Not at this time.

Peter Ainsworth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is reading out a press release issued by Lord May, which was not sent to me, and, without giving way, seems to expect me to reply to it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not responsible for the content of hon. Members' speeches, and I suspect that this is more a matter of debate than a matter of order.

Alun Michael: The matter will be debated in due course.
	I want to balance the comments made by the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee with the Royal Society's devastating criticism of the Committee's report. I am sure that those points will be debated at length on another occasion, and I am content to leave the matter there.
	The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford emphasised the science-based approach and referred to changes that have already taken place. We must remember that man has manipulated plants to produce better crops and food for hundreds of years. Indeed, many traditional changes have not been subject to the same scrutiny and questioning as the GM approach. GM may be considered as an extension to a long-term process, as all main food crops are genetically different from the wild crops from which they derive.
	It is possible to do things with GM that one cannot do with conventional breeding, such as combining unrelated species, but that is why we need a vigorous regime carefully to examine possible risks from proposed GM crops to health or to the environment. By the same token, however, GM may offer benefits that conventional breeding cannot deliver, and it would be foolish to overlook that potential, especially over the long term. As with any technology, GM could be used for good or ill, and the right approach is to examine each proposed application case by case according to the evidence, which the Government are doing.
	On a similar point, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) analysed a number of arguments on the use of GM crops that he finds less than convincing. He also made the valid point that the wish to feed the world should not lead us to relax on the science and the evidence. Without going into the detail of some of the cases that I find less compelling than him, I agree with him on that point of principle. Again, it is a question of examining the evidence on a case-by-case basis.
	The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) discussed GM-free zones, and, although I am not sure about the practicality of such an idea, which is certainly not an appropriate basis for legislation, voluntary approaches might be different, and his contribution raised some important issues.
	Perfectly fairly, the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) asked what has been done and considered the examination of evidence as a journey. In effect, she said that we must go down that road, but that we must travel with care and take a precautionary approach.
	I want to underline the key messages in the Government's approach. Our policy on GM crops is precautionary, evidence-based and sensitive to public concernswe are not in a rush. We have implemented comprehensive and transparent processes, such as the public debate, the science review, the cost and benefit study and the crop trials, to ensure that we reach a position from which we can make informed decisions. We take public concern seriously, and we have weighed public opinion alongside the scientific evidence. Our policy seeks to address the people's concerns, but, as both Government and Opposition Members have said, careful analysis of the lessons from the science must be the primary consideration.
	Our priority is safety, so safeguarding human health and the environment is our overriding concern, which is why we have implemented a strict regulatory regime. Each proposed release of a GM product is subject to a detailed risk assessment, which involves careful scrutiny by independent scientists based not only here, but throughout the European Union. We will agree to the commercial cultivation of a GM crop only if we are satisfied that it is safe.
	Finally, there is the issue of choice. Tough new labelling rules will ensure that consumers can choose between GM and non-GM products. We intend to put in place co-existence measures before any commercial cultivation takes place. Ultimately, it will be for farmers and consumers to decide whether they want GM crops and food. The Government's responsibility is to try to get a coherent policy that examines the evidence, bases decisions carefully on the evidence, and advises and informs the public.
	When we debate an issue that is as divisive as GMI could mention others that call for an equally balanced and proportionate approachMembers on both sides of the House must try to inform the public by taking a clinical and scientific approach. I acknowledge that that is what Opposition Front Benchers have done today. In so doing, we will help to clarify the way in which we should go forward on the important issue of the future of GM foods.
	It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, the motion lapsed, pursuant to Order [27 April].

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
	That
	(1) the proposal for a draft Special Educational Needs and Disability (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
	(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 20th May at half-past Two o'clock; and
	(3) at that sitting
	(a) the Committee shall take questions under Standing Order No. 110 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and shall then consider the legislative proposal referred to it under paragraph (1) above;
	(b) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings not later than two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the legislative proposal referred to the Committee; and
	(c) at the conclusion of those proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).[Mr. Ainger.]

FLY-TIPPING (GLOUCESTER)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Ainger.]

Parmjit Dhanda: I am delighted to have secured this debate on fly-tipping, which is an issue that, more than many others, fills my constituency postbag. That strength of feeling is probably replicated around the country. I should like to raise several aspects of the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has decided to leave the Chelsea-Monaco game to participate in the debate, so I shall leave plenty of time for him to make his comments and for the Minister to respond.
	Fly-tipping is a menace to all those who take pride in their surroundings. The illegal deposit of commercial waste and general household wasteparticularly larger domestic waste such as refrigerators, mattresses and garden refuseis unsightly, to say the least, but its impact can be much more serious than that. Drums of toxic waste, asbestos sheeting, syringes and used drugs present a hazard to the public, and I have found that they have all been dumped in my constituency. Fly-tipping can damage the environment, watercourses and soil quality. It also costs a great deal of taxpayers' money. The Environment Agency estimates that there are about 50,000 incidents of fly-tipping each year at a clean-up cost of between 100 million and 150 million. Irresponsible fly-tippers cause the problems while hard-working taxpayers foot the bill. That is totally unacceptable.
	I know that my constituents agree with me on this, because I recently conducted community surveys, and for those residents who responded fly-tipping was one of the top complaints. It would take me hours to describe to the Minister every situation that was mentioned in the surveys, but one local example was the mess in Abbeymead at the Coney Hill hospital site. A local campaigner, David Purchase, got that mess removed with the help of staff at Gloucester city council. It is a recurring problem, however, and I am conscious that not every neighbourhood is fortunate enough to have a David Purchase willing to take up the concerns of local residents. Nor is everyone as effective as David at getting the necessary action taken, and sometimes people have to wait too long for it.
	In paying tribute to the work that David Purchase and other residents in Abbeymead and Barnwood have done on getting the trouble and mess cleaned up, I also want to ensure that fly-tipping can be tackled without our always having to rely on such doughty campaigners.
	I should like to examine the steps that have been taken so far to tackle fly-tipping and consider how effective they have proved. I should also like to ask my right hon. Friend what else could be done to solve the problem. I believe that the right legislative framework has already been put in place, most recently in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which gave local authorities powers to stop, search and seize vehicles that were suspected of fly-tipping. It also introduced fixed penalty notices and higher fines for repeat offenders convicted by a magistrates court. The most serious offences, including dumping toxic waste, can result in a prison term.
	The provisions are in addition to the robust powers of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for clearing waste from land, the national database Flycapture, which was launched on 5 April, and the fly-tipping strategy, which was published for consultation on 23 February. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and I are aware of the consultation and we will urge our constituents to participate in it. They have a week or two in which to contribute because it ends in mid May. I want to ask the Minister whether the Department will accept late submissions, because many people in my constituency would be keen to contribute to the process. The measures are welcome and worth while.

Alun Michael: We would certainly examine the content of any late submissions.

Parmjit Dhanda: I appreciate that, and I thank my right hon. Friend.
	We need to ask why fly-tipping remains such a serious problem, given the legislative framework that I outlined. The reasons can be summed up in two words: communication and enforcement. Although the powers are in place, too often agencies do not work together. That is certainly true of Gloucester. Too often, they do not work together to effect what they have the power to enforce. Sometimes they do not have enough incentive to do that. The manifold communication problems can be greatest locally.
	The county council is responsible for waste disposal, yet the district councils are responsible for its collection. An inherent complication therefore requires effective communication to ensure smooth running of the service. The Environment Agency is also involved locally. Several examples of difficulties have arisen. My right hon. Friend explained the provisions of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 in a guidance note dated 31 March 2004, but the information does not appear to have filtered through to all the relevant local agencies. That is understandable, because it is complex.
	At a recent meeting with staff from my office, an environmental officer from a neighbouring district council complained that the local authority was obliged to pass on to central Government receipts for on-the-spot fines and that local authorities therefore had no incentive to collect the money. I know that that is not the case because, in a written answer to me dated 30 April, my right hon. Friend stated that section 119 of the Local Government Act 2003 allows local authorities to retain receipts for litter fixed penalty notices. That provision came into force on 18 November last year but the officer to whom my assistant spoke was unaware of that. It is therefore important that we convey that message loud and clear throughout the country.
	One district council's environmental officer was not permitted to attend an Environmental Agency training day on fly-tipping solely because she is not an employee of the agency. I would welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on that. I have spoken to Environment Agency employees, who also find that a remarkable state of affairs. It is easy to resolve: the agency should permit relevant officers from local authorities to have access to its training. That is common sense.
	In addition to the communication problems, there is little incentive to enforce the law and prosecute those guilty of fly-tipping because often it is not cost-effective to do so. For example, I am advised that it could cost up to 2,000 to bring an offender to court, but that would rarely be worth while if the eventual fine were only 50. Surely the penalties must be greater to make the costs worth bearing.
	I have described some of the main difficulties and their causes. I would now like to suggest ways of solving some of the problems. I can assure my right hon. Friend that any help that he can offer will be strongly welcomed by Gloucester city council. Under the leadership of the Labour council leader, Mary Smith, the city council is getting on top of the problem of fly-tipping, and it is keen to get tough. In its manifesto for the forthcoming local elections, Labour in Gloucester pledges to enforce on-the-spot fines for those who drop litter in the city centre. The council will continue the bulky collection service recently introduced in local neighbourhoods and increase the use of partnership clean-ups in conjunction with local communities. I, along with many other MPs, know that those clean-ups are very useful. I recall recently being up to my knees in rubbish with Mary on the Matson estate.
	Gloucester city council's tough approach to fly-tipping is part of a wider strategy to deal with related issues such as abandoned cars. Operation Dodger, Gloucester's joint initiative involving the police, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the city council, has been successful in removing more than 2,000 abandoned vehicles from the city's streets in just two years. Regular street cleaning, graffiti removal, dealing with fly-posting, and the introduction of community support officers have also contributed greatly to the appearance of the city centre, but I would be the first to accept that there is a long way to go. I know that the city council recognises that the measures that have been taken are not enough, and that combating fly-tipping must be one of our priorities, because of some of the recent problems that we have had.
	I would appreciate my right hon. Friend's comments on how we can improve communication and enforcement, to ensure that the hard work of the Labour Government and Labour-led Gloucester city council brings results at local level. The right powers are in place. What steps can my right hon. Friend take to improve communication between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Environment Agency and local authorities to ensure that they are properly and effectively enforced?
	Will my right hon. Friend consider extending the duty of care regulations imposed under section 34(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to occupiers of domestic property with respect to household waste produced on the property? It is getting to the stage where prosecution and imprisonment are necessary to deal with those who spoil our communities in this way. If that measure applies to other forms of waste, perhaps it is time that it applied to household waste as well.
	The tough new antisocial behaviour laws are good news in the battle against fly-tipping, but the toughest part is making sure that there is strong enforcement. The people of Gloucester have put up with the nuisance of fly-tipping for far too long. I want us to go beyond on-the-spot fines and to start prosecuting those responsible for fly-tipping household waste in the same way as we prosecute those responsible for tipping toxic waste. After all, it is all poisonous to those of us who have to put up with it.

David Drew: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I can call the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) in a half-hour Adjournment debate, I need his assurance that he has the permission of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) and of the Minister to speak.

David Drew: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall use just a couple of minutes to reinforce the comments of my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him and to the Minister for giving me this space to say a few words.
	Without in any way casting aspersions on the good people of Gloucester, I would like to point out that the problems of fly-tipping do not necessarily remain within the boundaries of the city. Fortuitously, one of my constituents, Mrs. Liz Hall, a resident of Harescombe, called a public meeting on 20 Aprilat which there were representatives from Harescombe, Haresfield, Brookthorpe, Edge and Painswickto discuss the very problem to which my hon. Friend has alluded. They discussed the measures that are already in force. Subsequently, I wrote to them about the consultation, and I hope that they will send their comments, either via me or directly to the Minister. Notice was taken of what the Flycapture campaign, which the Government have already launched, was capable of achievingthe use of antisocial behaviour orders and so onbut the main call was for greater co-ordination. Clearly, there was some difference of emphasis between the two authorities, Gloucester city and Stroud district councils, about what measures were being used. From my experience of the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003, I know that greater co-ordination and consistency of action is at the heart of what I hope the Government will do as a result of the consultation.
	In addition to taking careful note of the results of the consultation, will the Minister say how he envisages taking forward that co-ordinating role to include not just different district authorities but, in the case of Gloucestershire, the disposal authority, which is the county council? We must bear down on this serious problem, to give notice to my constituents that enforcement can be much more effective and to ensure that communication is more effective.

Alun Michael: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) on securing this debate, and congratulate him and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on packing an awful lot into a short period. This is an important issue, and I am pleased that it has been highlighted in the House tonight.
	Issues such as fly-tipping, litter, graffiti and fly-posting matter to Members of Parliament and councillors because we know that they matter to our constituents. They are part of a continuum that is important in any local area. We know that people want to live in places that are clean, green and safe, and the three elements are linked. I am glad that some of the points that I want to make in response to the debate will be strongly supported by colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Office, who share the view that that continuum must be tackled comprehensively by central and local government.
	I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester talk about local initiatives in Gloucester. In my experience, the city and the council have always been at the forefront of crime reduction and of trying to tackle the problems that attend any city centre. The Local Government Association shares the Government's view of the importance of these issues.
	Illegal disposal of waste, or fly-tipping, whether of industrial or casual domestic material, is an antisocial activity that pollutes the environment and reduces the amenity value of local areas. The Environment Agency estimates that fly-tipping costs authorities and landowners between 100 million and 150 million a year to clean up, in addition to the damage to local communities, on which it is more difficult to put a cost. The Environment Agency dealt with 5,000 incidents in 2002, which was nearly a 20 per cent. increase on the previous year. The Government agree fully that there is a need for further action, and we are taking action on a number of fronts.
	My hon. Friend rightly referred to measures to tackle fly-tipping in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which were commenced on 31 March 2004. They include: the power for local authorities to investigate incidents in more detail; the power for local authorities to stop, search and seize vehicles suspected of being used for fly-tipping; and the power for the Secretary of State to issue statutory directions to formalise the division of responsibilities between the Environment Agency and local authorities. That introduces the sort of coherence to which both my hon. Friends referred in their contributions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester mentioned a local authority official who was unaware of a change under section 119 of the Local Government Act 2003 that allows local authorities to keep receipts from litter fixed penalty notices. I find that surprising, because all these issues are dealt with in information and guidance packs that we have sent to all local authority chief executives in England. It has been possible to download the pack from the DEFRA website since November 2003. Perhaps it should not be surprising, however. A lot of changes are taking place, and it is difficult for all local authority officers to keep abreast of everything. Given what my hon. Friend has said, I shall write to chief executives again stressing that the information is available and emphasising the need for it to be disseminated at all levels in local authoritiesnot just to officials dealing with these issues directly, but to district offices or information outlets where people may need the information in order to address problems raised by people approaching local authorities or, perhaps, citizens advice bureaux.
	I have also sent all Members an information pack produced specifically for MPs by ENCAMSEnvironmental Campaignswhich outlines a series of local environmental quality issues and ways in which they can be tackled locally, either through local authorities or by means of voluntary effort. Perhaps we could all share the task of disseminating information and encouraging people to take advantage of the available procedures, whether statutory or voluntary.
	Information was also issued to many local authorities by ENCAMS through its people and places network, to the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management through its electronic mailing network, and by the Improvement and Development Agency's network. It has been possible to download the information through the DEFRA website since 31 March 2004, and the IDeA Knowledge website is also available. We launched a joint initiative to make the information available, but obviously it is useful only if people know where to find the information. I hope that my hon. Friends and others will draw this to the attention of their local authorities.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester asked whether we would extend the duty of care regulations made under section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to occupiers of domestic property with respect to household waste. The section imposes a duty of care on businesses to secure a waste transfer note whenever waste is transferred, which must be kept for two years and can be inspected by the agency and local authorities when they investigate fly-tipping incidents.
	Section 34 does not currently apply to householders, but it is a criminal offence, under section 33 of the 1990 Act, for a householder to dispose of household waste outside the curtilage of his or her property other than in accordance with a waste management licence. A review of section 34, setting out the framework of the current duty of care regime, began in March this year. Its terms of reference are being finalised, and I shall ensure that it considers the issue of householders and household waste.
	The Government are keen to help local authorities and the Environment Agency to work together to deal with the problem of illegally dumped waste. The agency and the Local Government Association have agreed to a voluntary memorandum of understanding called the fly-tipping protocol, which is currently being updated and reviewed. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud agrees that involving those organisations in designing the way in which they will work is a good idea. The protocol focuses on the division of responsibilities for dealing with fly-tipped waste, and encourages the development of local agreements. We acknowledge that in the past difficulties have been posed by the boundary line and who should be responsible for what. Both the agency and local authorities are now making a genuine effort to work together and ensure that the approach is as seamless as possible.

David Drew: My right hon. Friend will be aware that authorities such as Gloucestershire are in the process of letting the contract for their waste plans to private contractors. Is it not reasonable to suggest that this matter could be part of those waste plan proposals, so that we really see authorities working together? Those plans are raising lots of money, and we want to see the most effective use of them.

Alun Michael: I agree that the most integrated way of dealing with such matters is often the best, but my hon. Friend will also accept that we are working on improving the situation on all those issues, including fly-tipping. It is impossible when going through a process that involves consultation and agreement always to be at the right point when a contract is being let. I agree that, wherever possible, the legislation being put in place, or any new developments, should be taken into account, but life has to go on, and dates for letting new contracts can sometimes be a short-term obstruction.
	Under powers in the Anti-social Behaviour Act, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is consulting on proposed statutory directions to the Environment Agency and local authorities that will clarify the division of responsibilities, ensuring that an effective working partnership can be maintained. Those will also ensure that members of the public know which authority deals with fly-tipped waste, and will encourage better joint working between neighbouring local authorities and among local organisationsa point that my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester and for Stroud both mentioned. I hope that that will help to overcome some of the problems to which they referred.
	The Government are also consulting on a comprehensive fly-tipping strategy, and that consultation closes on 14 May. As I have mentioned, whenever we are dealing with a strategy, we hope to get all contributions in by the date set because that makes it easier for officials who have to analyse the responses so that Ministers can respond to the consultation as quickly as possible. We certainly do not intend to ignore any contributions received after that date, however, if they make new and fresh suggestions.

Parmjit Dhanda: Obviously my right hon. Friend is interested in hearing from agencies, local authorities and the Environment Agency, but would he also encourage individuals in our communities to make submissions?

Alun Michael: We are always open to submissions from individuals, but they often do not have the comprehensive experience when we are developing a strategic approach. The important thing for individuals is that we make sure that there are arrangements to enable them to go to one point to get the information that they need, and to get actionwhether the local authority, the Environment Agency or another body has the direct responsibility. However, if there are contributions from individuals that would help towards our strategy, we are certainly open to hearing them.
	The measures being proposed have five key aims. The first is to ensure better prevention and investigation of, and enforcement against, fly-tipping and other forms of illegal waste dumping. More effort spent on those aspects can mean that less is spent on clear-up, which will result in long-term cost savings. Secondly, we want to make existing legislation more usable and effective. If problems have arisen in the use of present legislation, we want to clear them out of the way. The third aim is to extend the range of powers available in the toolkit so that the Environment Agency and local authorities can be more flexible when dealing with fly-tipping. Fourthly, we want to improve the data and knowledge base so that resources can be targeted. Finally, we aim to ensure that the Environment Agency and local authorities can do their job as effectively as possible, and to ensure that waste producers take responsibility for having their waste legally managed. I underline that point, because people often try to evade that responsibility.

Parmjit Dhanda: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to write to me about my point about training and the confusion over whether the Environment Agency and the local authority can train each other's staff?

Alun Michael: I will certainly do that. In my experience, joint training is important when there is an interface or an overlap between organisations. I am sure that the problems can be overcome.
	We have also funded the agency to develop a web-based system called Flycapture that will enable all local authorities to submit data easily. Often, we need the data to know which problems central and local government need to tackle together, but it can be onerous to gather the information. The system went live on 5 April 2004, with the first month's returns due by 25 May 2004. That will help us to keep more up to date on how things are developing. The agency and local authorities are required to submit data on the types and quantities of fly-tipping that they deal with, along with summary data on enforcement action taken to deal with the problem.
	We are trying to link what is happening locally with what we can do nationally to support and encourage the co-ordination of action so that people at the local level, where it counts, get a better service from Government, local authorities and the Environment Agency, and we all operate as a team.
	I share my hon. Friends' ambition to improve the quality of service and therefore the environment of people living in their area, and indeed in every part of the country.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Nine o'clock.